|
Events in Christchurch and Japan have certainly
shaken New Zealanders out of their complacency.
It is a timely reminder of the importance of
council’s core services, the services we take
for granted – namely water supply, sewage
disposal and roading.
And it also highlights the importance of strong
leadership and effective communications.
The leaders who have a responsibility to guide
us through these challenging times are those we
elected at the local body elections, and that
brings me to my constant catch-cry, half those
eligible to vote, don’t bother to do so.
Leadership is relatively easy in times when a
community is prosperous, and there are no
natural disasters to test our ‘preparedness’.
Bob Parker, as Mayor of Christchurch, and Tony
Kokshoorn as Mayor of the Grey District have set
an exceptionally high standard of leadership
that has inspired not only the citizens in their
own communities but people throughout our
country.
In my own district, the Horowhenua, I am hearing
from people who are very concerned about our own
civil defence arrangements. Foxton’s CBD, for
instance, was rebuilt following a spate of fires
which razed the wooden shops in the 1920’s.
Hence it became ‘the brick zone’, constructed a
decade before the Napier earthquake tightened
building standards. Foxton Beach, with a
predominantly elderly population sits alongside
the Manawatu River which became a raging torrent
in 2004.
No doubt, there are plenty of other cities and
towns who are evaluating their risks, as part of
their obligations under CDEM, the Civil Defence
and Emergency Act which came into effect in
2002.
Risk management is obviously vitally important
for councils, as local authorities must be able
to function to the fullest extent possible
during a civil defence emergency.
To achieve this, the onus is on councils to
establish civil defence emergency management
groups. Their role is to both identify and
manage risks in their area, taking all steps
necessary to provide suitably-trained and
competent personnel for effective civil defence
management. The ‘civil defence emergency
management plan’ must be regularly reviewed.
Local authorities who have taken this
responsibility seriously will obviously be
better equipped to deal with any situation which
jolts a community out of its routine lifestyle.
The update of the Building Act during 2004 gave
Parliament an opportunity to address one
important safety issue, buildings which may
collapse during an earthquake. All councils were
required to adopt a policy on ‘earthquake-prone’
buildings by May 2006, recording council’s
approach to this matter and how this policy will
apply to heritage buildings.
Design standards to deal with earthquakes were
first introduced in 1935, four years after the
Napier earthquake, and due to engineering
advances, these standards were raised in both
1965 and 1976.
But until 2004, there was no policy to deal with
buildings erected before these standards came
into force.
Under this new regime, councils are obliged to
set in place a procedure to evaluate public
buildings, and if the council remained satisfied
a building presented a risk, to issue a written
notice to bring that building up to standard.
For those buildings given a priority rating, the
Building Act gives councils the authority to
evict the occupiers, cordon off the building and
issue an injunction requiring the work to be
done. Failure to comply can attract a fine of up
to $200,000.
At the time, these compliance measures may have
sounded harsh.
But, as recent events have affirmed, a city’s
ability to withstand a natural disaster is
dependent on the principle of ‘preparedness’ –
measures discussed around a council table at an
ordinary meeting on an ordinary day by the
ordinary people elected onto the council.
However, policies are nothing but words on a
piece of paper, unless the resources are
available to implement them. I wonder, as we go
through our annual plan consultation process,
whether anybody will question our council’s
allocation this year of $222,000 towards
emergency management.
I doubt it. |