Members of the public look on as smoke and fire light up on February 15, 2017 in Christchurch, New Zealand.  (Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
Members of the public look on as smoke and fire light up on February 15, 2017 in Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)

SocietyFebruary 16, 2017

The Port Hills fire makes it clear: Our Civil Defence is simply not fit for purpose in 2017

Members of the public look on as smoke and fire light up on February 15, 2017 in Christchurch, New Zealand.  (Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
Members of the public look on as smoke and fire light up on February 15, 2017 in Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)

As wildfire continues to ravage the Port Hills above Christchurch, questions are being raised about the scale and efficiency of the official response. When it comes to communicating with the public following a major emergency, why are the lessons of Christchurch and Kaikōura still unlearned, asks James Dann.

Christchurch is flat and largely featureless, one- and two-storey dwellings slowly encroaching onto the patchwork of the Canterbury Plains. The Port Hills frame the city, helping you reset your compass as you navigate the grid of the CBD or the sprawl of the suburbs. You can see them from anywhere – which is why the whole city has been transfixed since Monday night, as the fires have spread across the hills. We’ve watched as the smoke first emerged, as it seemed to abate, and then in horror as it rapidly moved through the valleys behind the Cashmere Hill from around midday yesterday.

I had an excellent view from my office at RDU* in the CBD, and spent the afternoon watching, tweeting, trying to find more information about what was going on. Wildfires are unpredictable by their nature, but it certainly seemed to me that the emergency services were not prepared for the speed and scale of this event. Our first reports were coming from social media – such as when the power went out over large chunks of the city – but obviously the information there was user-sourced and not necessarily verified. All through the afternoon, there was a paucity of information; the first media outlet to really recognise the significance of the days events was RNZ, that ran an extended Checkpoint from 5pm. The coverage on Newshub at 6 was far superior to OneNews, with two reporters at each end of the fire, providing multiple reports.

Members of the public look on as smoke and fire light up on February 15, 2017 in Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)

I grew up in Cashmere, at the foot of Westmorland, one of the suburbs that was evacuated yesterday afternoon. Both my parents and my brother still live there. I have been checking in with them since Monday to see whether they were ok, but when I rang my mum yesterday afternoon, she was appalled at the lack of information. I was able to relay information, mainly sourced off of twitter, but also from the CCC website. Mum mentioned the horrendous traffic on the roads, and how long it took for them to get back home. The situation with rubber-neckers was upsetting, but on one level, kind of understandable. There was very little information about the fire, so many people decided the best way to find out would be to go and look themselves. If there had been clear information about the danger earlier – and also asking people to keep the roads clear for emergency services and residents – then much of this could have been avoided.

Updates were few and far between, and coming in piecemeal fashion from a range of sources – the police, the council, the lines company Orion, Transport for Christchurch. There seemed to be no co-ordination between the agencies, and this wasn’t made much better by the state of emergency that was declared around 6pm. The Christchurch Civil Defence twitter account didn’t even send out its first tweet about the fire until 7:33pm.

As was clear with the response to Kaikōura, and also to the initial Christchurch quakes, our Civil Defence is simply not fit for purpose in 2017.

Around 11pm, a number of news outlets, as well as the City Council, carried the news that 40 houses had burnt down, citing as Civil Defence representative as their source. After much confusion, this was clarified as 4 – not 40. It may have been a simple mistake, someone mishearing a number over a bad phone line or walkie talkie, but it will have caused a large amount of panic as many people were trying to get the latest information before heading to sleep.

It is clear that Civil Defence have major issues communicating clearly and accurately. The Minister is right – the response was too slow. But instead of lashing out and trying to pass the blame, he would do well to have a hard look at his own role. The dysfunction at the Ministry created in his image, CERA, led to an awful relationship with the public and a reluctance to release any information unless compelled to. As Christchurch has shown in the last few years, New Zealand is vulnerable to all sorts of disasters – earthquakes, flooding, fire – and while we can’t predict when they will happen, we can at least be well prepared. Having clear and concise communication is absolutely vital to keeping New Zealanders informed and safe – and as it stands, Civil Defence appear to be unable to do that.

*RDU has been well aware of the severity of the situation since Monday night, when our transmitter on Marley Hill was taken out of action.


The Society section is sponsored by AUT. As a contemporary university we’re focused on providing exceptional learning experiences, developing impactful research and forging strong industry partnerships. Start your university journey with us today.

Keep going!
(Photo: Getty Images)
(Photo: Getty Images)

SocietyFebruary 16, 2017

Substance abuse affects 90% of prison inmates. Why are they being fobbed off with unqualified addiction counsellors?

(Photo: Getty Images)
(Photo: Getty Images)

Addressing addiction issues in prison is one of the best ways we have to drastically cut reoffending rates. If only Corrections took the problem as seriously as it deserves, writes Wellington addiction counsellor Roger Brooking.

In April last year, Radio New Zealand reported that the Corrections Department was paying for non-existent alcohol and drug counsellors. The story omitted the fact that most of the AOD (alcohol and other drugs) counsellors who do work in the prisons are not actually qualified – at least not in addiction treatment.

The qualifications required to work as an AOD counsellor in prison are described in tender documents recently issued by Corrections. The documents relate to Drug Treatment Units (DTUs), the prison programme that inmates with addictions are required to attend. The tender states:

“DTU programme clinical staff and the DTU clinical manager will have a relevant qualification in psychology, counselling, psychotherapy or similar.”

Remarkably, the document does not specify that the ‘relevant qualification’ has to be a graduate degree. Nor does it state that clinicians require a qualification in the assessment and treatment of addictive disorders.

Paremoremo Maxium Security Prison, Albany. Photo: David Hallett/Getty Images

Currently an AOD agency called CareNZ has contracts with Corrections to run eight of the nine DTUs in New Zealand prisons. CareNZ also has contracts with a number of DHBs up and down the country to provide addiction treatment to the public in community clinics. The DHB contracts are a great more specific. For example, CareNZ’s contract with the Waikato DHB says:

“Clinicians employed to deliver these services must have a level VII (graduate) AOD specific qualification.”

Clearly, the DHBs want value for money; they want the people treating addicts to be professional clinicians – ones who are specifically qualified in the treatment of addictive disorders. But Corrections doesn’t seem to care. Perhaps that’s because their clients are only prisoners – so any old counsellor with any old qualification will do. If that’s their attitude, no wonder drug treatment in prison doesn’t work.

And it doesn’t work. Hundreds of inmates are put through DTU programmes each year and they reduce reoffending by less than 5 percent. Mind you, 11 of the 12 rehabilitation programmes in prison don’t work. Corrections management are concerned about this because in 2011, the government set the department a goal to reduce reoffending by 25 percent by June this year.

The Department seems to think the poor performance of the DTUs is CareNZ’s fault. They even initiated an evaluation of CareNZ’s performance by an independent consulting company, Julian King & Associates. Amazingly, the independent review reported that CareNZ was doing fine.

So when RNZ reported that Corrections was paying for non-existent counsellors, Corrections’ Southern Regional Commissioner, Ben Clark, spun the story like this:

“If we had cause for concern that Care NZ weren’t delivering an effective service to our offenders, and weren’t giving the taxpayer good value for money, then absolutely we would look to put that money elsewhere, but so far we have no evidence of that being the case.”

Less than 12 months later, Corrections has indeed decided to put taxpayers’ money elsewhere, by putting the DTU contracts up for tender. The tender process is nearly complete and my sources tell me that six of CareNZ’s eight contracts have now been offered to other AOD treatment agencies. But as described above, neither CareNZ nor any of the new treatment agencies will be required to use qualified or experienced clinicians.

This makes no sense whatsoever. There are now over 10,000 people in prison in New Zealand and up to 90 percent of them have problems with substance abuse. At least 45 percent of inmates also have underlying personality disorders, mental health problems and learning disabilities. They often use alcohol and drugs to alleviate the symptoms associated with these disorders.

Addictions are hard to treat at the best of times; treating inmates with coexisting disorders is even tougher. The counsellors who work in prison therefore need to be as qualified, if not more qualified and more experienced, than AOD clinicians in the community. At the very least, they need to have a graduate degree in the assessment and treatment of addictive disorders, and they need at least five years’ experience working with addicts in the community before starting work in a prison.

Corrections has used CareNZ as a scapegoat. That particular agency’s role in the prison system has been cut, but nothing will change if the clinicians doing the counselling can’t cut the mustard.  To use another analogy, changing agencies is akin to re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic; unless the right people are sitting in the right chairs, the ship is still going to sink.

Roger Brooking is a Wellington based alcohol and substance abuse counsellor. He blogs about crime, justice and prison issues at Brookingblog.


The Society section is sponsored by AUT. As a contemporary university we’re focused on providing exceptional learning experiences, developing impactful research and forging strong industry partnerships. Start your university journey with us today.