10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister of Civil Defence
Does he stand by his statement in relation to the tsunami warning last Thursday that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management was “accurately on top of their job” and that “the BBC is at fault”; if so, why?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence) Link to this
Yes. The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management had correctly assessed that there was no risk to New Zealand of a tsunami. The BBC is at fault because it ignored the caution on the first advisory at 3.42 a.m. from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, which said: “It is not known that a tsunami was generated.” It also ignored the 4.30 a.m. advice from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, taking New Zealand off the watch list, yet broadcast at 5.14 a.m., turning a possibility into a reality and saying that a wave was to hit Gisborne within an hour, when clearly it was not. The BBC was clearly wrong.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How was it fair to blame the BBC for the shambles last Thursday, when its New Zealand correspondent, Greg Ward, was told by the Auckland Police Communication Centre at 4.55 a.m. that a tsunami was on its way to Gisborne, due at 6.20 a.m., and when he was told by Gisborne Hospital that an emergency was under way, that off-duty medical staff were being called in, and that its repeated calls to Civil Defence went unanswered; and just what would he expect a responsible media organisation to do with that information from the New Zealand Government?
I cannot confirm that those were the words uttered by the police to Mr Greg Ward. It is not the advice I have. Secondly, the advice to the BBC initially alerting it to the possibility of a tsunami at 3.42 in the morning stated: “This center will monitor sea level data from gauges near the earthquake to determine if a tsunami was generated and estimate the severity of the threat.” These are the experts. They have all the equipment. They know what they are doing. I would have thought the BBC would go back to its original sources of information and check with them. They did not. On the last point, yes, communications from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management could have been better, and they will improve in the future.
H V Ross Robertson Link to this
Will there be any changes to communication standard operating procedures in light of last week’s events?
Yes. The updated standard operating procedure will ensure that a formal advisory is forwarded to Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management partners, such as the police, the fire service, and all civil defence agencies around the country, at key decision-making points during the assessment of a warning. Similarly, media advisories will be provided during the assessment and a stand-down process. I expect the ministry, within a week, to conduct an exercise with both our civil defence partners and the media based on the new updated procedure. This will enable people to compare like with like.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How can the Minister seriously say to this House that he stands by his statement that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management was accurately on top of its job last Thursday, when it concluded at 4 a.m. that there was no emergency but did not put out any statement to any media organisation until 6.50 a.m.—2½ hours - plus later?
The member misses out some critical information. Firstly, the ministry did give media press statements, and it issued media press statements verbally to the media prior to 6 o’clock. Secondly, it rang all the civil defence agencies on the East Coast between 5 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. What it did not do that I think it should have done—and that it will do in the future—was to issue formal notes to everybody the moment it made a decision, and then get on with it. That is what it should have done and what it will do in the future.
Craig FossIs the Minister aware that the people of Waimārama, about 200 kilometres south of Gisborne, were so frightened that many deserted their homes in the early hours of last Thursday, and were so unnerved by the incompetence of civil defence communications that 90 of them—about a quarter of Waimārama—attended a public meeting last Sunday, at which civil defence volunteers were unfairly criticised; and will he now apologise to those volunteers for having to bear the brunt of his ministry’s incompetence?
If I thought the ministry was wrong in telling people there was a tsunami, when there was not—if I thought it was wrong in saying that a tsunami was going to hit the East Coast within an hour, when it was not—then I would certainly make it apologise to everybody personally. The fact is that the BBC told them that. The ministry’s media communications were not prepared for the international media comments on it, and that is a deficiency. It will be corrected—of that people can be assured.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
What does it say about the competence of his ministry that after 220,000 died in a tsunami last year his ministry is not prepared?
Members should judge the preparedness of the ministry in a positive light. If at 3.30 a.m. it received a warning that a tsunami was on the way and it pressed every button it had available to it—the police, the fire service, and civil defence organisations throughout New Zealand—then I believe there would have been not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands but many, many more people shifting in those intervening hours. There would have been a mass movement. The fact is we had one wrong report and thousands of people moved. We should imagine what would have happened if we had decided to press the panic button and told people they had to shift. It would have been incredibly effective.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek the leave of the House to table the statement by Greg Ward, the BBC correspondent in New Zealand, that he was told by the Auckland Police Communication Centre at 4.55 a.m. that a tsunami was on its way to Gisborne, due at 6.20 a.m.
Madam SPEAKERI seek leave to table the bulletin issued by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center at 3.42 a.m., advising that it was not known that a tsunami was generated and that it would be monitoring events.