KEY POINTS:
Here is an earlier selection of Your Views:
Andrew
This is an economic decision, but there are other options to moving the town that may ultimately be cheaper. How about putting the houses on stilts (they do this in places in Australia, and it doesn't need to be costly), and of course banking up the river/s? Ultimately, tax-payers shouldn't be indefinitely bailing-out people who live in flood-prone areas. The options should be explored.
Frances
I live in Thames, in a house over 100 years old. The water is only across the road. We have had floods '81, and '85 that have been inside and three since then that have made a mote around the house. Most of Thames has been flooded at sometime. Where would all the towns that are flood prone go? If man would leave the earth alone there would not be so many disasters. Why does Thames the Coromandel flood? Because of the gold mining and clear felling of the land. We don't need gold to survive. Leave it where it is. Grow trees green gold and leave them where they are.
Bruce
I think John's contribution hits the nail on the head. The Hutt Valley has a bigger population than Dunedin, so I'd love to Labour direct a comment in that direction! The Upper and Lower Hutt City councils have undertaken extensive river protection schemes paid through local rates yet in the case of Lower Hutt, the increase for rates next year is just 1.6 per cent (or thereabouts). Individual communities need to use their rates to solve their particular problems they why they are paid! It's not up to citizens in other areas of the country to do so, given they're already paying to fix up their vulnerabilities.
Brisbane
The flooded river at Keri Keri and the downed gum tree bring back memories of the 80s when the Keri Keri basin was filled with those damned gum trees after a flash flood. My first wife's grandfather lived just above the boat ramp and woken in the early morning by the sound of roaring water passing his house and covering the road. These latest floods may be higher over a larger area but hopefully there won't be any fatalities this time.
Anthony Arthur Alexander
There are few things more discouraging than being often flooded out and I think Helen Clark's views are on this occasion exactly right.
Amanda
Clay and grass paddocks with little topsoil left aren't known for their ability to absorb water quickly. Plant more trees! They help prevent slips too. Also, if you're going to live on a flood plain, perhaps it's a good idea to build a little higher off the ground.
Kathleen
Kaeo has always been subject to flooding. I remember at least twice in my life being stranded at south end of Kaeo waiting for floods to dissipate and seeing the church exactly as in recent photos. If people choose to live there then they know what the historical problems are. Did Helen Clarke really say people had to move from those areas? Seems to me there are very few places in NZ that would be really risk free, beautiful hilly green country that I love!
Debbie
live in Auckland. If, in the unlikely event of a volcanic eruption, my house gets destroyed it's my fault and I will only have myself to blame. Kaeo has been flooding for as long as anyone can remember, so surely if people continue to live there, they only have themselves to blame if they get flooded out. Don't even get me started on the residents of Matata (continual earthquakes and flooding and they still stay??)
Peter Davis
Well we think the PM is barking up the wrong tree as her suggestion of relocation is not a simple operation. Do you get people in Auckland to relocate because of traffic and transport problems?I think Mayor Sharp is on the right track in that councils should not allow new buildings to be constructed in flood prone locations.People have lived in some of these towns for many years and it would be a major hardship for them to move, unless the government pays. After all Mr Cullen has many billions of dollars in his coffers.
Jess McKenzie
My view on this is that if they are saying that the people of Kaeo should move then the goverment should pay for it and not the tax payer.
Rosemary
My SIL lives at the Kamo bypass, in both storms she has been flooded out. Does that mean our great dictator Uncle Helen thinks she should move out as she is in a flood prone area? If so I hope she is going to find her a house exactly the same. She is ill so cannot move very far to and from the kitchen. She is also a band member so she not only needs room to practice but she needs room to teach. She is also a student, so needs room to study and she has five grand kids who love to coming stay. One of her daughters and her three kids live with her so room is needed for them. Plus it needs to be at a price she can afford and in Whangarei. I would be very happy to here from Uncle Helen when she has found a new place for my SIL, and I will take her there myself.
Ryan
Large floods are not uncommon events and I hope the Northland floods of 2007 serve warning to the public who live on flood plains that a 1 in 100 year is only a crude engineering reference. Naming an event a 1 in 100 year flood is only as reliable as the hydrological records available and in New Zealand most records rarely exceed 50 years. This means it is highly possible that similar instances occurred in the past where storms of the magnitude experience in 2007 have affected Northland over a short timeframe. Our flood records are often too short to gauge long-term trends in flood frequency and magnitude however, we do know that floodplains get their name for a reason, they flood! Therefore, people who live on floodplains have to weigh up the costs and benefits of living there. Despite this weeks flood in Northland being labelled a 1 in 100 year flood there is no guarantee the region will not be affected by a similar event in the next few years.
Chuck Bird
Is there any issue this woman does not have an opinion on? One would have hoped she learned from her do not sell your Air New Zealand shares comment. If someone does decide to move from one of these flood prone areas her comment will make it more difficult for them to sell.
Richard
I normally strongly disagree with anything Helen says and think she normally plays the PC card waaaaaaaay too much. But it appears she is starting to think that maybe it's not right for the rest of the country to constantly pay for those who have made poor choices. Those on state housing should surely relocate. I dislike seeing my taxes get flushed down the drain.
Nigel
To remind everyone, this storm was categorised as a one in a 150 year storm. A few months ago we had a one in a 100 year storm. Is Helen yet again professing that she knows more than her own experts? If flooding of this intensity is not expected on a regular basis why should residents need to consider vacating their historic homes? We didn't evacuate Auckland when the power went off, why should flooding in Northland or Thames be any bigger issue?
John
In Wellington, the Hutt Valley was subject to repeated floods in the 19th century. David Millar's 1972 history of the area shows that the locals set up a board to tackle the matter. The Liberal government under Richard ("King Dick") John Seddon refused to fund the engineering alterations on the grounds that taxes would provide particular property owners with a lift in their individual property values for no benefit for the general populace. The locals instead established a rate for the expenses of flood protection based on a graduated scale with those most at risk being the highest payers. The work was done and the flooding was reduced. Whether this is an acceptable model is open to debate. Trying to shift Lower Hutt Valley residents now if there was persistent flooding would be an interesting exercise. Where would you put them all? I would like to know if 19th century insurance companies refused to insure for flooding/water damage? Does anyone know?
Rhea
Flood-prone areas are clearly identified in District Plan and Regional Plan maps. Flood risk is also highlighted as a hazard on certificates of title. Councils impose minimum floor levels on new houses built in flood risk areas, and in Whangarei resource consent and an independent engineer's assessment is required to build a new house on flood hazard land. People still subdivide, build houses and want to live on nice flat flood plains next to picturesque rivers despite all these warnings.
Ben
Forcing one to abandon their home (due to the disasters in Northland) is hard, harsh and very emotional, no one likes to be torn away from the fortress called home and the supporting community. But at the same time people have to be realistic and objective not subjective to the problem the befronts us. In geography at the University of Auckland, there is a paper on Hazards of the Natural Environment that gives the students insights to hazardous areas like Northland, Wellington and New Orleans. For one it showed our arrogance in the fact that trying to tame nature we would always lose when building these establishments. But history can not be undone so therefore we mitigate. And there are three primary options: Option 1 is Hard Engineering, that is we build leeves, pumping stations and other structures to prevent flooding, slips and erosion in efforts to tame nature. Option 2, Soft Engineering, in the case of coasts replenish the beaches and dunes, with rivers dredge the silt and with structures raise them and vegetate hills knowing events will occur. Option 3, abandon and move to higher ground. The most political hot potato but often the wisest to prevent future heartache. What option the government takes to mitigate, god knows but we as humans must realise that we can not stop or tame nature, but we can alter our ways to mitigate the heartache and losses for the future. To be blunt, it will take "balls" to make a hard call, a call that could save Northland for any future heartache my heart does go out to you guys. Use New Orleans as an example for the losses caused when a failure to mitigate a known problem from people and authorities. That disaster could have been avoided!
Live Life (ex-Northlander)
So before Wellington gets flattened by a earthquake, is Helen going to suggest all residents living on the fault line should move? No matter where you live in good old NZ some areas are more prone to certain weather or natural events than others. We pay insurance and learn to cope with it, and by being the generous people that we are all help each other out in times of need. To force anyone out of there home and away from an area they may have lived in for many years is ridiculous.
Rob
Chairman Harry Clark has clearly lost the plot here. Perhaps we should move Auckland away from the wind to keep the roof on the apartments. Perhaps she could throw some money into helping these communities prepare and prevent further disasters like this happening. It will be so good to see the back of him\her next election.
Tracey (Northland)
What a ridiculous and stupid comment to state. Let's all remember Helen's comment when her house in Auckland blows up in a volcanic eruption. As advice maybe she should pack her bags now to avoid any unexpected circumstances that mother nature throws out.
Kim
For people to have to move from their properties would be extremely uncomfortable. Not only have some of them picked themselves up after the initial flooding but to have to relocate? That would be even worse. Perhaps Helen Clarke should have taken some of the 35million she gave to Yachting New Zealand and put in provisions for the possibility of re-flooding after the March siege. I accept that some natural disasters are just that and all the planning in the world could not prevent some of mother nature's moods. I do however wonder why after the March floods why there were no changes made to the area/districts to aid in the prevention of a reoccurrence.
Richard
I think the question should be put to the local authorities. Who originally deemed it safe to build in those areas? Drainage and storm water are and always have been important when considering sites for building surely?
Douglas Taua
Personally, this is another example of residents around speedways. It would be common sense to move immediately after such disaster has occurred to the resident. Unless you have the money to fork out to insurance companies, and are willing to sacrifice the treasures handed down through your family lines, then my advice would be "your doing fine, just enjoy your time until the next cyclone". In the end, the risk is yours, the risk is your family, are they really worth your house? History or no history significance.
Julian
This is absolute BS from Helen Clark. Generations of families have lived in these Northland communities. I think a change in leader is imminent. She is obviously losing the plot. I don't vote National and never will, and I don't vote Labour. This is a callous statement to make to Northland communities that are traumatized. Offer help not advice Helen, a good thing would be is to use some of that surplus tax money to build better infrastructure in Northland, and stop blowing it all in Auckland, one good way to get traffic off the roads in Auckland. Bring back the no-car days of the 1970s and use that money you would save building more roads in Auckland to build better stop banks etc up North.
Matthew Pilott
Susan - there were calls for the entire city of New Orleans to be abandoned. Only a cavalier and idiotic George Bush was stupid enough to ignore it, saying it would be built better than before. It will still be a sitting duck for the nest hurricane, just like many towns in Northland.
Matthew Brown - these people's "established homes" are currently in a foot of water and completely uninhabitable, while there is a chorus of readers' comments saying the government should pay for them to be relocated, or defended, or rebuilt. Suggesting this happens somewhere else isn't a bad idea, I'm sure many residents would appreciate the chance. A classic example of bitterness clouding judgement on your behalf.
At least Clark can show common sense, as opposed to giving a 'poke in the eye' to National voters, there's a shallow dig if ever I heard one. Perhaps we should leave this to be sorted among the locals and the government, instead of getting all huffy on their behalf?
Mel
Isn't everyone missing the point? Maybe I am not getting it but surely one would have to consider moving if one could not get insurance on their property? Makes sense to me!
Fiona Canning
I think the weather is going to get more extreme. People should be forced to consider this when considering property for residential or business reasons. The government should be involved in the categorisation of risk to property. Speculators are the big benefactors of a lack of policy in this regard.
Dan
Building permits (consents) should have never been issued for known areas of flooding. The persons that have allowed building in these areas should be fired or removed from office. Persons that have built in areas of known flooding should bear the costs of repairs unless they can prove they did not know of the flooding dangers. Put responsibility where it belongs and stick to it. Stop issuing consents for bad areas. That does not require a lot smarts.
Dave(Aust)
guess you cant be living in Wellington with Helen. When the'Big One' hits dear old Helengrad and devastates the whole place then I guess the rest of the country (especially Northland)will be justified in saying tough tiity!
Josh Stevenson
The suggestion that citizens of a free domocratic society should be forced to move because their location poses an economic cost is a further indication of the preparedness of New Zealand governments to sacrifice the felicity of the people to the felicity of the economy. This suggestion comes hard on the heels of the Prime Minister's statement that her government is to force the unemployed to act in the interests of the community affected by the floods. This was a policy of the government of Nazi Germany. After Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 his government forced the unemployed to do exactly this. Hitler referred to the groups set up as "Labour Battalions" and the unemployed as the "Work shy."
Matthew Brown
From time to time NZ catches a glimpse of the real devious Helen Clark, e.g. her "cancerous" and "leper" comments. Now she wants people to give up, pack their bags and move on out from their established homes.
Tracey (Auckland)
I think this is how humans and animals have survived through the years, but no doubt people will be up in arms about having to leave the place they have called home for 10, 50 maybe even 200 years. Hopefully common sense will prevail. Remember, if you buy a car that is common for theft your insurance premiums are high. Perhaps the same will happen for people who live in high risk areas.
Vinny
The government should offer interest free mortgages on part of the residents' houses to generate funds, and invest in countermeasures such as spillways and embankments.
Susan
I suggest that the PM is offering very cold comfort to the flood victims. I didn't hear anyone suggesting that New Orleans should move!
Jo J
Move where? Surely people live where they live for more reasons than it's a nice view. Economics abound, people live where they can afford to live, in fact some don't have a lot of choice. Rents too high, mortgages too high, wages too low, taxes too high, GST on essentials such as milk, bread, fruit, vege! Where will it end? Consumerism, the me culture and if you happen to be a politician, I deserve a pay rise I work too hard. Get real Helen!
Rossnz
No-one should be forced to move. But they should be left in no doubt that if they stay, they will not have insurance nor will they receive public sympathy or donations when they eventually lose everything. The message is simple if you can't afford insurance, you can't afford ownership, and if you can't get insurance you shouldn't take the risk. Move or be damned.
Greg
No, people shouldn't been required to move from the north. The past four months aside, this type of weather is rare in Northland. This is clearly just Helen Clark giving a poke in the eye to the constituent's of a National stronghold.
Alan Wilkinson
In March Russell township was flooded to a depth of 18 inches inside shops. This week a house lost a roof but there was no flooding at all. Certainly the rain was less intense here than in March but the main reason is that the Council had investigated the cause of the flooding and fixed the drains. Incredibly, new pipes had been drilled straight through major street stormwater drains and of course sediment had build up behind these obstructions more or less completely blocking them and consequently causing immense damage to main street shops and businesses.Before moving houses or towns the real causes of flooding need to be competently investigated and evaluated. Holland would not exist if the Dutch couldn't deal with water and weather. I suspect similarly competent engineering and infrastructure could make a big difference for many New Zealand towns and be more cost effective than abandoning them.
Susan O'Neill
Regarding moving residents of Northland, it may be prudent to look at options for this. If residents are insured they should be given help via the government, council and insurance companies to achieve this. If not insured then tough. It was with interest I listened to the Minister of Civil Defence dodging the issue of who should pay he was of the opinion that residents should have to bear the cost of this, excuse me but our government is very quick to give away lots of tax payer dollars to overseas disaster funds, send lots of help then when something happens over here they seem to be reluctant to help their own, if the insurance premiums do rise, it should not be an across the board increase, they maybe could put a small loading on insurance premiums in these flood prone areas and if residents have done all they can do in regard to safeguarding their homes then you can't ask for more than that. I do hope the government is not going to cough up for the uninsured, that is their responsibility to pay insurance like the rest of us do.
Sue
I don't think residents should be required to move. That is draconian. They will not have money to move anyway as they won't be able to sell their houses. Who would buy them? There is little sympathy in our upper classes for the plight of so many people in New Zealand. To even suggest that people should be "required to move" is indicative of their callousness and selfish attitudes.