10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister of Civil Defence
Why should New Zealanders have confidence in the National Civil Defence and Emergency Management Plan when Canterbury civil defence says it has “big ambiguities, big inconsistencies, big holes”, when Greater Wellington civil defence described the plan as fatally flawed, and when Mai Chen’s legal opinion called it “dysfunctional”?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence) Link to this
Because for the first time we have a national plan, and an accompanying guide that has 400 agencies across New Zealand engaged in a coordinated structure for local, regional, and national support responding to and recovering from a disaster. There can be no doubt that the national plan makes proper provision for management of impacts of disasters at a national level, from whatever cause. This is done in both clause 9 and other parts of the plan. While the plan and the guide are robust, I have no doubt that they can be improved over time. The fundamental arrangements for responding to disasters are robust.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
What will it take for this Minister to realise that civil defence is not properly prepared for an emergency, when we had a botched Auckland civil defence exercise in April, the fiasco over communications in respect of the tsunami warning a fortnight ago, and this week, criticism by Canterbury and Wellington that their plans are fatally flawed and dysfunctional, or do we have to have bodies in a real civil emergency before he realises that his civil defence services are not prepared?
In respect of the opinions of the Wellington civil defence group, those opinions are 9 to 12 months out of date; they were opinions launched at the time the plan was put up for discussion. I had a discussion with the group this morning and its members accepted that the plan is substantially improved and they are comfortable with it. In respect of the exercise in Auckland, I would expect that any exercise would identify some inconsistencies. It is very difficult to get things perfect the first time. What I am looking for in civil defence are constant improvements over time, and we have achieved that.
Steve ChadwickYes, I have seen a report that states that the national plan, as it stands, is an adequate description of the current understanding and arrangements in place for managing national emergencies, but there are some areas for improvement that a review will address. However, it also states that the plan is definitely an improvement on the situation prior to the adoption of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. The report goes on to state that a great deal has been achieved since the new Act was adopted, and looks ahead to what can be achieved during the next 2 years that will contribute to a more robust national plan with a formal review in 2 years’ time. That report was from Local Government New Zealand president, Basil Morrison.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why does the lead story in Dominion Post this morning state: “A spokesman for Civil Defence Minister Rick Barker said the minister would not comment on the report.”, and why does he bother collecting a $216,000 salary, a ministerial car, and a house if he is not prepared to front up and answer questions about our preparedness for a civil emergency when there are lives at stake?
Because I am here today answering questions, as I should do, and I want to say that this Government has put substantial amounts of money into civil defence. We are going to increase the amount of money for civil defence by about 60 percent, with substantial increases in staff. We have overhauled, for the first time in 20 years, the plans for schools, in What’s the Plan Stan?, and the week after next we will launch a national campaign of information about civil defence. An enormous amount has been done, and that member should respect the effort and work of local civil defence and emergency groups in contributing to the safety of New Zealanders.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Are these increases in civil defence staff precisely the kinds of increases in bureaucrats that the National Party spends most days in this House attacking?
I can confirm that the National Party has opposed increases in civil servants and Government staff, but I can also say that we have identified this increase in staff as a restructuring of civil defence, which is quite different from the restructuring we had under a National Government, which was chop, slash, and hack into the civil service of this country.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does he stand by his press release of April this year in response to concern from National about the state of preparedness of civil defence when he said: “Never before has Civil Defence in New Zealand had this kind of support from New Zealand’s 86 local councils.”, when 19 councils in Wellington and Canterbury describe his plan as dysfunctional, fatally flawed, and illegal; and is it not the truth that despite the doubling of the budget, we have never seen civil defence in such a confused and dysfunctional state?
I reject the criticism by that member entirely, and I stand by my earlier press release. Yes, we have done a great deal, and I think if one goes to any civil defence group in New Zealand—and I have been to a number—one will see that they say without equivocation that things are much better than they have been in the past. We have better plans, we are better resourced, and we will be better in the future. Yes, there are some disagreements in some areas, and I will do my level best to ensure that those disagreements are resolved in the near future.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why has the Minister told the House this afternoon that the concerns of Canterbury and Wellington civil defence were those of 19 months ago and have now been addressed, when Canterbury on National Radio yesterday morning and Wellington on National Radio this morning made it abundantly clear that they think we are taking undue risks with our lack of preparedness of civil defence. Why did he mislead the House?
Madam SPEAKER
Gerry BrownleeI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is question time, and this man is a Minister. He was simply asked why he indicated earlier today, in the same set of questions, that the positions taken by Canterbury and Wellington were 19 months old; and why, when confronted by my colleague Dr Nick Smith in order to acquaint him with the fact that the comments were made yesterday and again this morning, has he taken offence? How on earth can he take offence in that regard? This is question time, for goodness’ sake!
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I do not very often agree with the Opposition, but in this case it is echoing, I think, an important point, which the Opposition itself often gets confused, and that is the difference between misleading and deliberately misleading. The member opposite is allowed to claim that a Minister has misled the House. If we were to raise points of order about misleading questions, I would be on my feet after just about every supplementary question in this House.
I stand by the comments I made before that the criticism from Wellington was, as I understand it from the best advice, at least 9 months ago, about the draft plan. The subsequent plan that was released makes them feel much more comfortable with the position. In respect of the criticism from Canterbury, it is about language. For example, the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act uses the word “emergency”; the plan lists “civil defence emergency”, and they have said, on the basis of that, that the plan is fatally flawed. Crown Law opinion disagrees with them emphatically, and I am happy to rely on Crown Law opinion.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why is he saying there will be no changes in the plan for at least 2 years, until it is reviewed, when there is widespread concern from councils, which say the plan is fatally flawed and dysfunctional; and what on earth are New Zealanders meant to do in the event of a civil emergency in the next 2 years before the plan is fixed?
I repeat: the statement about the plan being fatally flawed was by the Wellington council at the time the draft plan was put out. The plan has been updated. The concerns they raised have been addressed, and they now find the plan quite satisfactory. In respect of another point of view, I go back to it and say that the national plan as it stands is an adequate description of the current understanding of the arrangements that are in place for managing national emergencies. That is the view of the local government group, and I support that. That is exactly the case.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table the transcript of Radio New Zealand this morning from the Wellington civil defence coordinator, who, in contrast to the Minister’s comments, made it absolutely plain that the plan was totally unsatisfactory.