Comment: An emergency management system with wide variations in performance, significant capability gaps, funding shortfalls and above all a setup that is not meeting the needs of New Zealanders at times of crisis.
The Government’s inquiry into the response to Cyclone Gabrielle and other severe weather events in the North Island last year, released on Tuesday, does not make for easy reading. But nor should its conclusions be entirely unfamiliar to our politicians and policy makers, and that is arguably the most troubling aspect of all.
Our country’s ability to handle large-scale emergencies has been repeatedly placed under the microscope in recent years, with a series of reviews after the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes, the Port Hills fires, and now the North Island’s devastating bout of severe weather.
The inquiry’s findings are blunt: “As a country, we are not ready to respond to large-scale emergencies. Significant changes to the design, funding and operation of our emergency management system are needed.”
It says communication and warnings were non-existent or sufficient, and notes a “striking disconnect” between the way communities and emergency management agencies – particularly councils and regional civil defence and emergency management (CDEM) groups – viewed the response.
While CDEM agencies told the inquiry they relied on communities to respond to the immediate impacts of an emergency, affected individuals and groups said they had no local plans to put into action and felt let down by the official response.
The report says the lack of a common operating platform across organisations meant there were differing levels of awareness about the situation on the ground, leading to “confusion, duplication of effort, the inability to get a true picture of the events unfolding in the region, a lack of timely communication to the public, and onerous reporting requirements”.
The inquiry’s concerns about a lack of training and expertise within councils, a lack of coordination between key organisations, and inadequate operation platforms have been raised before, with government responses insufficient or non-existent.
Indeed, the repetitious nature of some findings is not lost on the reviewers, who note with frustration that “many of these recommendations are not new and are suggested in previous reviews”.
The establishment of the National Emergency Management Agency in late 2019, replacing the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, was meant to address those shortcomings. But the agency itself is now facing questions about its effectiveness, with the inquiry citing the belief of other organisations that it “lacked visible command, control, and coordination of the national response during Cyclone Gabrielle” – a worrying state of affairs for an agency that should theoretically be at the cutting edge given it is barely four years old.
Some of the report’s recommendations, such as making greater use of the NZ Defence Force’s specialist expertise and widening the sectors officially designated as critical infrastructure, should be uncontroversial and relatively easy to implement.
Other suggestions, such as the expansion of national ‘fly-in’ experts to have at least three full-time groups, putting more money into emergency readiness and resilience activities, and developing a comprehensive warning system flexible enough to cover all natural hazards, will require the Government to back up any warm words of support with cold hard cash at a time when it is slashing rather than boosting spending across most of the public service.
Legislating for and investing in “an inclusive, community-led emergency management model” that builds up community networks beyond the current volunteer groups is a sound move in theory, if one that will need to be fleshed out in practice to ensure there is sufficient backing from those in local and central government.
The recommendation that iwi be given a formal role within the emergency management system, replicating a recommendation from the 2018 review into practices and processes, may be politically contentious within the current coalition, given its views on Māori issues.
In his initial response to the inquiry, Emergency Management Minister Mark Mitchell has held off on committing to any recommendations, indicating change is needed but saying he “wants to take the time to get this right”.
New emergency management legislation, to be introduced to Parliament later this term, will need to get sufficient buy-in at a local level to avoid the pitfalls of previous reforms. “As one submitter noted, ‘Wellington is good at writing guidelines and [regional groups] are good at ignoring them’,” the 2018 review noted.
But though it is understandable the Government does not want to rush any reforms, it cannot drag its heels as other administrations have, given the near certainty that damaging weather events will increase in frequency.
Investing time and money now may be difficult but it can only help to save on even greater costs when the next disaster hits.
