I agree, but it didnt fail because of the EQ or Tsunami. And its 1960's tech. NZ has risk everywhere as does Japan, Japan for more so, and to date, they haven't had a nuclear disaster caused by the reactor, its management, or EQ/tsunami.
It really doesn't matter what you ascribe the failure to; the reality is that it failed. Let's put it down to "lack of foresight" or "stupidity" or "Act of God" if you like. If you can't exclude "lack of foresight"/"stupidity"/"Act of God" in the design, location, or running of a nuclear power plant, then some kind of accident will happen again. And the consequences of that accident will be bad, expensive, and long-lasting. And the cost of all of that needs to be considered in the decision to go nuclear. Just like the cost of fixing CC-caused problems needs to be included in the price of carbon-emitting technologies.