That is especially the case when it comes to matters close to home on a local scale and which we can directly influence.
Disaster recovery is one of those fields where everyone should be able to play their part.
Individuals and local communities know best where to start and how much they can realistically do themselves; territorial and regional councils have a broader overview of the impacts and can bring much-needed heft, in the form of expertise and access to contractors and heavy equipment; while governments and government departments can support these efforts with advice and much-needed funding.
But how many times do we see this ideal happening the wrong way round, with bureaucrats and politicians in the gusty streets of Wellington decreeing from amid their latte bowls and blueberry muffins what is right for the folk of wherever the latest disaster has hit, and basing their level of support on national rather than local desires?
Large swathes of the East Coast of the North Island remain an absolute mess after repeated storms and floods in the past year, topped off by the devastating Cyclone Gabrielle in February.
The people of the region will be at their wits’ end.
Living among debris, mud and forestry slash, trying to eke out an existence and draw together some semblance of a home and community again takes a huge toll on the population, both physically and mentally.
We need only look at the damage the Canterbury earthquakes did, and in fact continues to do, to the mental health of many living in the region to get an idea of how badly those in the areas worst hit by Gabrielle may be affected in the years to come.
One positive and concrete way of helping staunch the tide of mental illness and exhaustion is to ensure locals are determining their own response to events and have the dignity of carrying out as much of the recovery effort as they can.
Interesting and concerning, then, that chief human rights commissioner Paul Hunt has fired a shot across the bureaucrats’ bows following a visit to the region last week.
He said it was clear communities wanted to lead with support from government and councils, not vice-versa, and that locals believed they were best-placed to run the recovery as they had the knowledge and experience of their lands, and the relationships, to determine what happens and how.
The shift of power away from the region was also seen as part of the legacy of colonisation, Mr Hunt said, with tangata whenua adding that the tino rangatiratanga of local iwi and hapū had to be recognised.
Mr Hunt is absolutely right. Look at what happened in Christchurch after the February 2011 earthquake.
Then, the John Key National government stomped into town and grabbed control of what had been largely a residents and council-driven start to recovery, leading to extreme disgruntlement and mistrust which lingers to this day.
There can be no doubt we have to get better at disaster recovery and working out what the whole resilience thing means.
Civil defence efforts after major destructive events, or even warning of their likelihood, are generally good but sometimes patchy.
Yesterday’s announcement by Minister of Defence Andrew Little of a new strategy to put a shot-in-the-arm of the New Zealand Defence Force is encouraging for future recovery efforts.
As climate change continues on its damaging path, and its consequences become potentially even worse, New Zealand needs to effectively place itself on a war footing against the elements.
Our armed forces play a significant role in disaster relief and in humanitarian missions throughout the Pacific.
Bolstering their capability to deal with whatever struggles the future brings, be they geopolitical or climatological, shows important vision.
