Thursday, October 29, 2009

Review of CDEM tsunami alerts process

I'm sure by now you've heard the there are two reviews underway following the response to the Samoa earthquake and tsunami. The first of these reviews is an internal review of MCDEM responses. I guess this is similar to the reviews many of us did to double check procedures and arrangements and to implement any opportunities for improvement identified.

The second review has been requested by the Minister. The following information was drawn from the Beehive website:

Civil Defence Minister John Carter has asked for a review into how the Civil Defence and Emergency Management ministry deals with tsunami alerts.


"Generally, the response to yesterday's tsunami warning was pretty good, but there are concerning reports about the ways in which some information was communicated to the public. Frankly, that is not good enough," says Mr Carter.


"Public confidence in Civil Defence is critical. There are always lessons we can learn from events such as these and I am determined to ensure we do learn from them."


Mr Carter says co-ordination between the national Civil Defence headquarters and regional operations went largely to plan, and it is usual for regional civil defence controllers to manage warnings in their own areas, because what works in one area may not work in another.


"For example, some places have cell phone coverage and some don't. That's why it's important regional controllers are able to make their own calls on their own patch.


"However, I think Civil Defence weren't as helpful as they could have been in communicating with the media in the early stages and I am also concerned about reports saying places like Wellington Airport didn't get timely information. We have to sort that out," Mr Carter says.


It was with some surprise yesterday that I learned that the review is complete and that none of the CDEM Groups present at our meeting yesterday had been consulted as part of the review... we'll read the report with interest before making comment.

No comments: