Ministry rejects claims of confusion in civil defence plan

The Canterbury civil defence management group has criticised the national management plan, saying there is confusion over who is responsible for co-ordinating a multi-agency response to major emergencies.

But the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management says the plan is "properly developed".

Canterbury's emergency management Group said a meeting in Christchurch yesterday reinforced the "significant problems" in the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan.

However the ministry dismissed the criticism and said Cantabrians could be assured the plan had been properly developed under the law.

The Canterbury group said problems with the new plan included confusion over the co-ordination of a multi-agency response to major emergencies, including an influenza pandemic.

Tsunamis, pandemics, earthquakes and volcanic hazards had not been identified as national hazards and the National Warning System about how communities would be warned about impending emergencies was not clear.

The group said its concerns were reinforced in a 40-page legal opinion from public law specialists Chen Palmer but that had been dismissed in a 10-paragraph response from the Crown Law Office.

The Director of Civil Defence and Emergency Management, John Norton, said there were 16 emergency management groups around the country and the national plan had wide support among them.

"Not everyone agrees with everything, but almost everyone agrees that we have a robust and workable plan.

"Even ... Canterbury has said it agrees with 85 per cent of it," Mr Norton said.

Canterbury's concerns were primarily highly technical criticisms about the definition of words, he said.

"No person or property would be significantly safer if what Canterbury wants was to be implemented in its entirety."

Mr Norton said the Canterbury group was not responsible for the national emergency plan - the ministry was.

"It has been properly developed, provides what is needed, and does what the law requires," he said.

"It is a significant step forward in developing civil defence preparedness in New Zealand."

Mr Norton said at some point everyone had to accept that there was a plan, and just get on with it.

"There are many pressing issues ... Highly technical litigation about definitions will not improve New Zealand's preparedness."

- NZPA