The Press THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1975. A crisis of confidence in Civil Defence

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33981, 23 October 1975, Page 16

The Press THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1975. A crisis of confidence in Civil Defence

In true Christchurch fashion the “Civil Defence row” has been simmering along for several weeks and shows no sign of being resolved. The personal and political undercurrents of the row are of no concern to the general public, who need no more than an assurance that the Civil Defence organisation in Christchurch could still deal with an emergency. The most important question raised by the row is whether the way in which civil defence is organised should be reviewed. At present civil defence in Christchurch is the responsibility of a Civil Defence Committee made up of representatives of the local bodies in the area. When a disaster is so serious that the police cannot deal with it on their own. an emergency is declared by this committee or its chairman Wide-ranging powers are assumed by the civil defence controller, who is usually a high-ranking employee of one of the local bodies. Under him is a full-time civil defence officer who is responsible for, among other things, ensuring that individual volunteers and voluntary organisations are ready to act in any emergency.

The Christchurch dispute apparently arose because of disagreement between the police and the civil defence controller on the one hand and the civil defence officer on the other over the circumstances which justify calling an emergency. This disagreement was apparently pronounced on August 1 when Christchurch was being battered by a gale. The row would probably not have arisen had the civil defence officer been the controller in an emergency. A fully-trained, professional civil defence officer seems the natural person to perform the controller’s duties. If the offices are to be kept distinct, there must be, as the Mayor of Christchurch (Mr H. G. Hay) has said, harmony and confidence between them, and between each of them and the Civil Defence Committee, particularly on the important point of when a civil defence emergency should be called. If the civil defence officer is also to act as controller, he must be a man who can work amicably with the police. Informal consultation between the police, the local bodies, the other professional services, and the civil defence officers will still be necessary before any decision is made to call an emergency. The ordinary authorities cannot lightly have their powers taken over by Civil Defence and they should know when their resources have been over-stretched

The decision not to declare an emergency on August 1 seems, in retrospect, to have been correct But the need remains for a civil defence organisation to mobilise volunteers and integrate the efforts of all, including the police and other services, who are equipped to cope with minor emergencies, into a general community effort. It has been a formidable task to enlist the support of organisations and individuals and train them so that they know what to do in an emergency. The discouragement of these volunteers in recent weeks is a serious blow to the community’s readiness for a disaster. Restoring the confidence of these volunteers in the civil defence organisation is the most important task the Civil Defence Committee now faces. Before it can perform this task it will have to convince the public that the leaders of the organisation will not be divided among themselves.