If emergencies demand a whole of society response let’s empower the whole of society!

Everyone will be both moved and frustrated by the initiative and courage of those in Mount Mangawhai who understood the danger of slips, and, unable to disseminate warnings through official channels, went to warn holiday-makers in person. In doing so, some were killed. After the slip, more people tried to rescue those who were trapped. Hundreds of volunteers were turned away by the rescue teams. There was no looting.

Neighbours and the local community are nearly always the first responders in emergency events. Mark Mitchell knows this and the country relies upon it. Emergency management, he says, is a whole of society obligation. Official assistance may not turn up till 3-7 days after a disaster. People should be prepared to look after themselves and those around them. And they do. Even when it is a risk. Sometimes, as here, it was for their own safety, but also if, say, you are a cleaner/contractor with a key to a community facility, should you open it up for people to shelter in during a flood. It's against your contract, but many would say you should.

But there is still a societal expectation that those in leadership positions reduce risk and manage the response as far as possible. And the Emergency Management Bill, by talking about accountability, and focusing on providing funds and indemnity only to those mandated by the emergency controller and their delegates (save those receipts!) seems to reiterate that. Regional and local councils must have emergency response plans, and someone in charge to announce an emergency with powers to do what is needed. However, it feels a little like the bill is designed to work out who to blame, rather than how to better empower local government and individuals to step up.

And let’s be clear, it is hard for councils to reduce all risk adequately. Not only are they insufficiently resourced but NZ is more vulnerable to natural hazards than any other country, with the exception of Bangladesh. In addition, managing risk can affect property rights (c.f. the Planning and Environment Bill that will replace the RMA that demand councils pay property owners for interventions that protect the environment but reduce profitability), and limits what can be done.

The Emergency Management Bill also speaks about individual responsibility to protect oneself but, it is not clear whether individuals - and companies and body corporates - be obliged to step up more (my hope), or whether the aim is to protect the taxpayer by allowing government (and by extension the companies) to step away.

If emergency management is a whole society of response, then greater education for all (not just for those working for the police and councils as staff or emergency volunteers though that is vital) to understand the hazards of the place they are in under different weather conditions would be very helpful. This should start at school but continue through life as we do about fire drills, the importance of wearing sunscreen, or being safe in the surf. That way enough people would understand the signs. Those who do act reasonably to respond to a disaster should be indemnified from civil suits and be able to be recompensed without the need for prior sign off by officials (as officials themselves are).

And councils should be better empowered and resourced to reduce risk through their land use planning as well as their emergency response planning, with all relevant information clearly communicated on their websites. These should be regularly updated. It is galling to discover that land slips are barely mentioned in the Auckland Emergency Website when a number of people died from slips in the 2023 storms and we are well aware of coastal erosion risks.

One of the less considered aspects of emergencies is how they play out in apartment buildings, particularly in a power cut, which in some buildings means people can get out but not in. For some reason, in Plan Change 120 there are flood plains in Auckland that allow tall buildings but not single houses. We can expect more people in apartments to have to manage in emergencies. They are not mentioned at all in the bill. In my view, all body corporates should be legally obliged to develop an emergency response plan that anticipates how people will not only evacuate but safely and securely rest in place.

The emergency management bill is to be commended for involving local iwi and communities more in the development of local emergency plans and for the recognition of the role marae, churches and community organisations (sports centres, theatres, surf clubs) play standing up community emergency hubs. They have in common a physical space, a network of people and the capacity and agency to organise a response. The idea is that they have links to local officials and the local community and are extremely valuable.

Also invaluable and with agency, capacity and local government links are trained volunteers - surf lifesavers, fire fighters and first aiders - who know what to do. But links with officials and communities can be severed as people move on. More importantly, disasters can hit anywhere and community organisations may be no more close to those on the ground as officials are.

Back at at Mount Maunganui, those out walking early called in a slip to the emergency services. They did this as locals with knowledge not in their capacity as trained volunteers or as members of a community organisation. They then, as individuals, did everything in their power to save people’s lives. The police, following the command and control model contacted the council as the responsible agency. Perhaps instead of the council call centre they should have called the emergency controller, who claimed they received no call. Too late, the response services swung into gear.

Given the choice between a gold plated body retrieval service, and an empowered population that know when and how to get themselves out of trouble in the first place, I’d take the latter. But that won’t happen unless we, as a society, make it so.