Civil Defense Blog

2
3

Screen Shot 2013-06-01 at 8.08.33 AM

When I was growing up, we had a poster on the wall of the toilet. It was a Civil Defence poster, that had a list of things to do in various emergencies – and if my memory serves me right, it was drawn by one Al Nisbet. It had that familiar Civil Defence logo on it – one that was also on a lamppost outside my primary school. In the immediate aftermath of the quakes, Civil Defence sprung into action – but how good a job did they really do?

The primary response of Civil Defence was in the CBD, rescuing people, then recovering bodies, from various buildings. I couldn’t fault them for what they did in this time. My queries are around what happened in the suburbs, away from the cameras. The army was called in very quickly. However, they were used to set up the cordon, which was initially the size of the Four Avenues. This cordon, now significantly reduced, still exists, and is still staffed by the army. While initially put in place to ensure the safety of people who might try go into the red zone, it also prevented businesses and residents – like myself – from regaining access to their property for months.

Meanwhile, in the suburbs, the people who were without water, food, power, toilets etc were cut off from officialdom. Into this void came armies of sorts – the Student Volunteer Army and the Farmy Army. These guys did a fantastic job, mainly removing the huge amounts of silt that was shaken up to the surface through the quake. As the days and weeks moved on, they ended up helping out with the distribution of food and water as well. Another community organisation, CanCERN, which was an umbrella group for residents associations, helped to coordinate the response between Civil Defence and the residents.

Now, I don’t have a bad word to say about these organisations, and the commitment the people who made them gave. My question is about the Civil Defence response in general. Shouldn’t the response to this sort of disaster be led by a government, who’s primary purpose is the protection and welfare of all of it’s citizens? If so, how was it left up to a series of volunteer organisations? Yes, this was a large disaster, of a scale we haven’t seen since the Napier quake. But Civil Defence has been around for decades, with a dedicated staff who’s very reason for being was to prepare for all sorts of scenarios. When the time came, the response was initially so focussed on the CBD that the needs of the community were met by the communities themselves. The army were called in – but to protect the interests of the propertied class who had interests in the CBD, rather than the average folk in the burbs.

There has been a review of the Civil Defence response, which is largely positive. However, a few of the points in the report allude to what I’ve discussed. Point 13 states that “voluntary groups provided major assistance, greatly reducing the level of hardship in the community, particularly in the early days of the response”; this demonstrates how critical local groups were for supporting the hard-hit, isolated suburbs. For these groups, getting an reliable information on the ever-changing situation was especially difficult – “up-to-date local information was not conveyed to badly affected suburbs, particularly before electricity was restored.” It’s worth remembering that for some time, before electricity was restored, the horrific images that people were seeing on TV were only viewable for people outside of Christchurch.

Even those on the hard-right who believe in minimal government would agree that one of the key roles of the state is to protect it’s citizens in times of war and disaster. While the response to the quakes has shown that Civil Defence was largely adequate, the report into the reaction has identified gaps in the system. Unfortunately, something like this will happen in this country again – and I hope that at that time, the government of the day isn’t leaving significant gaps for the community to step in and fill.

2 COMMENTS

  1. I have long thought that their should be a Volunteer Civil Defence wing made up of citizens whom recieve partime training and have direct access to the authorities, to coordinate help and report on infrastructure damage and if required even assist with rescue and recovery of the injured. Give these people a pair of overalls, a hard hat, the training and the authority to co-ordinate between their communities and other support services and utilities. Wellington or Auckland may be next.

  2. I think James is the first person to echo my thoughts on Civil Defence’s performance in Chch after the Feb quake. I would dearly love to know what changes they’ve made since the review. In any event, I won’t be expecting their help in the next disaster.

Comments are closed.