Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2778] 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Is he satisfied with the management of information arising from the tsunami warning this morning? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Minister reconcile his press release of 30 March 2006—and I quote: “Never before has Civil Defence had such an effective network with councils and regions.” and “New Zealanders can be assured that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is ready and prepared for any emergency.”—with the debacle that occurred this morning and which he has accepted the ministry messed up? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There was no acceptance of a mess-up. If the BBC which is a reliable news outlet says there is a tsunami when there was not says there is a tsunami heading to New Zealand when there was not says it is aimed at Gisborne when it was not and says there is police alert when there was not and if people accept the value of that news report then the BBC is at fault. The member cannot point the finger at the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management for that. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What action did the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management take in response to that? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The earthquake occurred at 3.27 this morning and immediately afterwards the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii was in contact with the national controller. There were discussions on and off until 4 a.m. when it was reasonably clear there was no significant risk to New Zealand. At 4.30 a.m. the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center reissued its warning but excluded New Zealand. A message was then put on the emergency number by New Zealand civil defence. At 5 o’clock this morning the national crisis management centre was staffed and at 5.36 this morning the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center cancelled its warnings because the sea level monitoring gauges at Niue Apia and Pago Pago indicated there was no risk of a tsunami at all. At 6 o’clock civil defence was monitoring the New Zealand media and at that time the New Zealand media were carrying no warning of a tsunami. It was only at 6.45 a.m. that the national centre became aware that the BBC was issuing such bulletins and it immediately issued its own notice saying there was no tsunami warning. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Government provide New Zealanders with waterproof radios because on today’s performance we may well be swimming by the time civil defence manages to send a press release to radio stations as to whether a tsunami is on the way given that it took 3½ hours this morning? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: There are about 20 events such as this each year. If the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management issued warnings for each one of them New Zealanders would be sick and tired of reacting when there was in fact a civil defence emergency. Civil defence staff in New Zealand were on the case immediately after the earthquake warning. They were managing the situation and they were accurately on top of their job. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain why when there was an earthquake at 3.30 a.m. and when the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center issued its warning at 3.40 a.m. there was no statement at all from his ministry until 6.50 a.m.; what sort of emergency service takes 3 hours to make any statement? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member like a lot of Opposition members misdiagnoses and then “misprognoses” the situation in that presentation. The fact is that moments after the earthquake the New Zealand controller was aware of the earthquake was in contact with the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center and was constantly assessing the risk to New Zealand. At 4 o’clock the best advice the staff had on the basis of their knowledge and local advice was that there was no threat of a tsunami to New Zealand. No warning had been issued. There was no need for a warning to be issued. The only time it became necessary to issue a warning about a tsunami was when the BBC got the situation exactly wrong by saying there was a tsunami when there was not and when it got it exactly wrong by saying it was heading to New Zealand when it was not. We then had to correct the error of the media. The media have a responsibility to report matters accurately. They did not do so on this occasion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister’s department spent any time in the last year or in the last 3 hours on preparing documents to advise citizens on how to prepare for a tsunami when there is no tsunami? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I think some good things came out of this event. The first thing is that some years ago a tsunami warning was given out on the East Coast and people went to the beach to watch. The best thing about this event is that when people believed a tsunami was on the way they fled. That shows a dramatic change in attitude by New Zealanders. People are now increasingly aware of the danger and that is a good thing. I assure the public that we are better prepared today than we were 12 months ago and in 12 months’ time we will be even better prepared again. 
Moana Mackey 
: Would the Minister have been concerned if the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center had not issued a warning given the size of the earthquake in Tonga and the very real risk at the time of the earthquake that a tsunami event could occur; and does he believe that had it not issued a warning he would be standing here today and answering questions from the National Party about why one was not issued? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member is exactly right. As I have said to the House before there are approximately 20 events like this in the Pacific every year and they are managed intelligently and carefully by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. We cannot overreact to each one of them because if we did the public would then get sick and tired of the warnings and would take no action when there was a genuine warning. We have a responsibility to tell people to the best of our knowledge what will happen. The BBC did not do that. It said a tsunami was coming when clearly there was not. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain why when Newstalk ZB and Television New Zealand repeatedly tried to contact the civil defence service between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. this morning they got no answer or an answerphone and when they tried to phone the Minister they could get no answer or response; and what does that say about the level of preparedness New Zealand has for a real civil defence emergency? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is well prepared for a tsunami warning. I accept that some people were misinformed and misunderstood the situation. We will go through this event very thoroughly and I am sure that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management will change its operating procedures. But it is impossible to protect the New Zealand public against an erroneous message carried by a media organisation. I want to say to Nick Smith that my phone was beside my bed all night. I had one phone call at 5.30 a.m. from the Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management to tell me no tsunami was coming. No other person rang me. I can check the log so if that member says that news organisations rang me and I did not respond at 6 o’clock that is wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why this afternoon in the House has the Minister proceeded to blame both the media and the National Party when his own statement said that the response this morning was inadequate and when in the answer to my first question he said that he was not satisfied with the civil defence management this morning; and can he be specific about what was inadequate in the management of the tsunami warning this morning? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: When I said “No.” in answer to the member’s question I meant that the management of the information—principally by the BBC—was appalling. The corporation was wrong on every fact and people took its reputation seriously and reacted to that. We realise that in the future we cannot afford to be blind-sided by media organisations that are not carrying correct stories and we will change the way we advise the public and the media accordingly. There will be improvements. I say to the House that of the 20 such events we have each year this is the first time that this thing has been wrong and it has been wrong because of wrong information put out by a media organisation. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister having accepted that the response by his ministry this morning was in his words “not good enough” apologise to the thousands of New Zealanders who thought their lives were endangered this morning and who were grossly inconvenienced because his ministry failed to make any statement till 3 hours after the event? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I do not accept the member’s version of the words I used. I do not accept that at all. Secondly if anybody is going to apologise to the residents of Gisborne it should be the BBC because the BBC said there was a tsunami the BBC said it was on the way to New Zealand and the BBC said there was a police warning out. That is what the BBC said and I think it should give an apology to the public of Gisborne. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I noted that the Minister said I had been incorrect in using his words that the response this morning was “not good enough”. I seek leave of the House to table the direct quote from the  
New Zealand Herald  
website titled: “Minister admits tsunami reaction not good enough”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the news releases from the North Shore Gisborne Napier and Christchurch councils stating how appalled they were at the communications from the ministry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.