I think I've come to the conclusion that many of the central government agencies take a silo'd approach to emergency management. There's a bit too much reliance on the team directly employed by the agency. A bit too much command and control and a bit too much inflexible thinking.
The business planning processes do not encourage small teams and business units to consider resilience (ie planning) ahead of an event as part of the annual planning process. The focus is often on business as usual or delivering Ministers directives.
Those within each organisation that are within the 'know', whilst able to work across and within the CIMS framework, are still constrained by political decisions and Chief Executive sign-off.
That said, Michelle's comprehensive list of organisations shows just how complex managing any type of emergency is - with at least 28 separate entities identified. As Alison has noted, you then overlay that with the different ethnicities and communities within the geographical or national area and we see why being prepared remains a crucial element for individuals, neighbours, localities, communities, local authority areas, regional authority areas and nationally.
I also think we tend to under estimate the recovery time comparative to the incident/disaster.
Looking at Canterbury after the earthquakes of 2010 - 2011, many home owners got frustrated at the length of time it too EQC to repair their homes - not necessarily truly understanding the issue of labour, building supplies etc where demand clearly outstripped supply. This would have been the same after the Hawke's Bay earthquakes in the 1930s and the creation of evacuation camps in Palmerstone North.
As an English migrant to Aotearoa, it then becomes apparent that the post-war recovery period was decades rather than years. I've only just recently understood the magnitude and implications of demobilisation. ie Many servicemen and women did not get back home until 1948. This is especially true for those people who had survived the Japanese death camps, who were medically unfit to travel, and who's physical recovery time was as much as 18 months.
So, I guess the area of emergency management of interest to me is really about support for the affected people, and truly effective communication.
The Human Rights Commission reports that reviewed the Canterbury response identified that communication to those affected had not been effective. The Chief Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner found similar failings.
Unfortunately, I have to report that some of my experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic, has again found communication to be less than effective.
What I've also learnt so far on this course is that continuing to identify building more land transport corridors linking regions isn't the magic bullet - and over the next 10 years or so, more focus needs to be on coastal shipping including such mid 20 century developments like hydro craft, so that relief can be delivered to affected communities. So Gary's points are also important.
I also think that we continue to underestimate the vital role that our voluntary and not-for-profit organisations add to all aspects of emergency management - especially Marae and Iwi for Māori and faith based organisations for our Pacific communities. I also remained concerned that those in community living under the Mental Health Act framework and all our disabled communities continue to be let down by the government agencies that are supposed to be supporting them.