It has also been called being up a certain creek without a paddle.
New Zealand’s civil defence and emergency management system is obviously creaking, though perhaps the last saying might be going a bit far.
However you want to put it, though, the word now out is that the regional civil defence response to the Cyclone Gabrielle disaster in February last year was seriously deficient. It reflects a national emergency management system that is dysfunctional and not providing New Zealanders with the safety blanket and life-saving measures we deserve.
The independent review by former police commissioner Mike Bush into how Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence responded to the cyclone which killed 11 people and caused billions of dollars of damage concludes that officials were under-prepared for such an overwhelming storm.
Mr Bush has also called for a complete overhaul of national emergency management, saying it is not "fit for purpose" and "sets up good people to fail".
His report comes as the sector appears to be taking a long, hard look at itself after a devastating 2023 in some parts of the country.
The National Emergency Management Agency is yet to release a "self-assessment" review of its response to severe weather in the North Island, saying the delay in doing so is because it wants to pinpoint the causes of the issues it has identified.
Also, Emergency Management Minister Mark Mitchell was expected yesterday to receive a report from a national inquiry directed by former governor-general Sir Jerry Mateparae into those weather events.
So what did Mr Bush say in his report? It was clear planning had not been carried out by the regional civil defence group for any worst-case scenario, and that the severity, scale and speed of Cyclone Gabrielle overpowered them, even though they had the best of intentions.
He said civil defence staff had been overconfident about being prepared for future events, based on prior experience such as the Covid-19 pandemic. They were inexperienced and had "optimism bias", taking a best-case scenario approach instead.
Plans lacked operational detail to deal with a catastrophe on such a scale, and while attempts to put those into action were made more difficult by a lack of electricity and communications, there should have been contingencies to deal with that.
Other findings included that mayors and councils worked well during the emergency, and that communities, volunteers, contractors, businesses, and utility providers gave a "critical and heroic response". However, these resources were not properly used by civil defence.
Iwi engagement was ad hoc, the Group Emergency Coordination Centre either ignored or hampered efforts of Māori agencies to provide welfare services, there was inadequate river management before the storm, not enough trained and confident controllers and staff, and civil defence did not properly use volunteers and community resources to help migrants, people with disabilities, and those in remote and vulnerable communities.
As if we need any reminding that New Zealand is an extremely hazard-prone nation. But in case we have forgotten, several years ago Lloyds of London released a study on global insurance and said New Zealand was the second-riskiest country in the world for natural disasters, behind Bangladesh.
The report from Mr Bush makes for salutary reading. While the coalition government is busy cutting public service jobs to save money, this is one area where it needs to spend more, if necessary, to protect our future.
Deaths and ruined livelihoods are generally not good for the economy, if the government insists on viewing such things through an economic rather than social or compassionate lens.
This is not the first time in recent years that a civil defence response has been criticised. It would be nice to think it might be the last.
