More cash promised for civil defence

By HELEN TUNNAH

A civil defence funding boost has been promised after a review of February's North Island floods revealed authorities would struggle if there was a major urban disaster.

The review has highlighted failures in the 111 emergency call system and an underfunded Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management which has too few staff; many existing staff lack experience.

While the review emphasises emergency workers battled to "exhaustion", some services, such as the police, were criticised for being too slow to ask for outside help.

The embattled 111 emergency telephone system was unable to cope with the number of calls, isolating some people needing urgent help when communications collapsed. Emergency operators were unfamiliar with the flood-hit areas and did not know where callers were.

Civil Defence Minister George Hawkins last night promised more money for the ministry in next year's Budget. It gets $5 million at present and has 28 staff.

Damage caused by the floods is estimated to have reached $400 million.

The terms of reference for the review were drafted to avoid blame for any poor response to the floods.

That has been achieved, but the review team led by former Defence Force head Piers Reid has painted a picture of weak or collapsed communications and poor co-ordination across flood-stricken regions.

There was confusion about how structures for managing a civil defence crisis should operate and some local authorities did not even know a national crisis management centre (NCMC) was working out of the Beehive basement.

There were unclear boundaries of responsibility between officials and overworked Ministry of Civil Defence staff at the Beehive, and information fed to the NCMC was fragmented. "It is apparent that the operations within the NCMC would struggle to cope in terms of information processes with an emergency of scale or magnitude greater than this event."

While the report did not criticise civil defence law changes introduced two years ago, it said there was poor community knowledge about what people should do.

It said while no one was killed in the floods, there were a "number of close calls" which could have led to tragedy if it had been winter or if the floods had been in a region where there was less Defence Force help.

The review team has recommended the establishment of a national civil defence call centre and the reintroduction of national training for civil defence co-ordinators.

It has also called for a public awareness campaign so people know what to do in an emergency, and perhaps the use of a dedicated radio frequency for broadcasting messages.

Mr Hawkins said the report did not find problems with the way systems were supposed to operate in an emergency. But he said he was concerned questions had been raised about the ability of authorities to cope with a bigger disaster.

"There will be [more money]," the minister said, "but I'm not going to get into the area of how much."

Ministry chief executive John Norton declined to comment on how much money his department needed to perform its functions.

"I'm just so pleased that we can now discuss it."

An earlier State Services Commission and Internal Affairs Department study highlighted resourcing problems at the ministry.


Lessons learned

* Neighbour checking on neighbour was the single most important emergency measure.

* People, including those needing help, could not ring 111 once phone lines overloaded.

* 111 operators did not know the geography of areas people were calling from.

* District officials failed to establish the scale of the event early enough.

* Emergency services worked to "exhaustion" but were slow to request backup.

* There was no system for radio or television to broadcast flood warnings or advisories.

* River flood warning systems failed; some were washed away.

* Some councils failed to actively check on areas cut off or out of telephone contact.

* People calling councils for help got told to ring back during office hours.

* Talkback radio was criticised for being alarmist and inaccurate.