Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 16 October 2012. Volume:684;Page:5807. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: Why did he reject the independent Civil Defence Emergency Management earthquake review’s recommendation which was made in response to the finding that duplication of control was “not only inefficient but put people and property at risk” and that “the same situation could arise in a number of different parts of New Zealand”? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Just so that we are clear about the recommendation the recommendation was that civil defence emergency management groups not territorial local authorities should lead and control the response to emergencies. To specifically answer the member’s question and give the reasons for rejecting the recommendation firstly it was that most emergencies are short term in this country and they are localised and best controlled at a local level. Secondly civil defence emergency management group controllers already have the legal power to control the response to local emergencies if necessary. Thirdly the ministry has already commenced a capability assessment framework to focus on improving leadership and governance not only in Christchurch but across the nation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Did he factor into his decision the fact that the Wellington regional territorial authorities have adopted precisely the model recommended by the independent review on the basis that “disasters don’t abide by territorial boundaries …” and that “A shared approach to emergency management will enable our communities to be better prepared and will provide an ability to share resources to best effect.”; if so what does he know that they do not? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: That is an excellent question. In fact the response by the Wellington civil defence regional group was as part of the capability assessment framework the recommendations that came from that framework assessment as well. Christchurch is a part of that and there were recommendations on that point to the Christchurch group as well. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When did his ministry first become aware of the situational and local political factors between Christchurch City and the Canterbury civil defence emergency management group given that they had been through the same analysis that Wellington had been through prior to the 2010 earthquake and what steps were taken to address these before people and property were put at risk? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Pre-empting that particular question I looked for specific dates. The capability review process was commenced in early 2010—that was before the first earthquake—it was finished in August 2010 and I understand that it was given to the chair of the group on or about 3 September a day or so before the earthquake. So they were aware of it but they did not really have any opportunity to introduce the recommendations. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was specifically when did his ministry first become aware? It was not a question about the local group. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did actually indicate that date. If I remember correctly he said some date in August. 
Louise Upston 
: What positive aspects of the response were highlighted by the civil defence review? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: The report concludes that police fire ambulance defence civil defence health services and lifelines maintained control rescued the injured and kept the public safe. The courageous efforts of emergency services and volunteer groups were commended by the reviewers. The earthquake was an unprecedented challenge but overall the report concludes that the emergency response worked very well.