Kerre Woodham: I realise now that assumptions are a luxury of the past

It has become apparent to me over the last few years that I make a lot of assumptions.

In my own defence, I think it's because I grew up in an era where you could make assumptions.

That people would do their jobs properly and to the best of their ability, that people took pride in what they did, and they had the good of the community at the heart of whatever they did. Didn't matter what job you did, be it heart surgeon or school caretaker, everybody took a pride in what they did.  

A story this morning caught my eye.

Waka Kotahi has not been factoring climate change and the need for resilience into many of its transport projects. A 38 Page report produced in 2020 by Tonkin and Taylor was damning.

Some of the extreme risks to the national roading network are not thought to be fixable, with any new engineering work pointless in the face of climate change; resilience for the agency is not a priority.

While the likelihood of hazards occurring unknown, like landslides, they're often deprioritised in favour of more immediate issues. As a result of the failure to account for increasing hazards through climate change, the cost of emergency work is skyrocketing.  

In 2014, emergency work spending by Waka Kotahi was $30 million. By 2018, those costs were $72 million.

I just assumed that roading engineers would take into account climate change. There have been so many reports produced that are all taken terribly seriously by government agencies and departments, except, it seems, by Waka Kotahi.

That's not on any particular government, clearly, that’s successive government failures to make resilience in our roading network a priority. So silly me. That was an assumption.  

Now I find in the wake of the terrible fire at the Lodge in Wellington that has left at least six people dead, that multi-story residential buildings aren't required to have sprinklers installed.

I just assumed that that would be standard.

I have never thought to ask when I've checked into a lodge or a hotel, whether sprinklers are installed in the building. I just assumed that there would be sprinklers. If you have a number of people inside a building that is too high to jump out of, you can see the fire escapes, fine. You can see the stairs. I just assumed that there would be sprinklers.

I suppose I should have raised my head and looked and checked or asked.

It is good to see that MP's from across the house are supporting an inquiry into the fire at Loafers Lodge. What precisely the form the inquiry will take is yet to be defined.

But isn't it a relatively easy fix? At the moment, New Zealand's building code doesn't mandate sprinklers in multi-storey residential buildings like Loafers Lodge, especially older lodges.

If I have a multi-story building that I decide to buy for myself and I choose not to put sprinklers on there, well more fool me.

But when you are taking money from people to accommodate them and it is a multi-storey building, put the sprinklers in.

In a fire, especially in an older building, it obviously means the difference between life and death. I mean more fool me. I made those assumptions, but I think I realise now that assumptions are a luxury of the past.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.