I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Group Committee will be held on:
|
Date:
Time:
Meeting Room:
Venue:
|
Tuesday, 22
March 2016
10.00am
Room 1, Level
26
135 Albert Street, Auckland
|
|
Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Group Committee
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Sharon Stewart, QSM
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Bill Cashmore
|
|
|
Members
|
Cr Alf Filipaina
|
|
|
|
Cr Denise Krum
|
|
|
|
Cr Calum Penrose
|
|
|
|
Member David Taipari
|
|
|
|
Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
|
|
|
|
Member Karen Wilson
|
|
|
|
Cr George Wood, CNZM
|
|
|
Ex-officio
|
Mayor Len Brown, JP
|
|
|
|
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
|
|
(Quorum 3 members) Quorum must include at least 2 named
voting members
|
|
|
Elaine Stephenson
Democracy Advisor
15 March 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117
Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
The Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee will
be responsible for:
·
Being Auckland’s strategic forum for civil
defence and emergency management planning and policy;
·
Establishing an emergency management structure
for the Auckland region;
·
Develop, approve, implement and monitor the
Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan;
·
Performing the statutory functions of a civil
defence emergency management group;
·
Representing Auckland in the development of
national emergency management policy;
·
Developing policy for, and monitoring, the
Auckland Council’s civil defence, emergency management and natural hazards functions;
and
·
Engaging with Local Boards on civil defence and
emergency management issues.
The Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee will
exercise the statutory powers outlined in the Civil Defence Emergency
Management Act 2002 and the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Plan.
The Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee is
authorised to approve use of the established emergency funding facility
provided for emergency management.
Relevant legislation includes but is not
limited to:
Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002; and
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
Exclusion of the public – who needs to
leave the meeting
Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the
meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a
person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.
Those who are not members of the public
General principles
·
Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know”
basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to
perform their role.
·
Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must
leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to
perform their role.
·
Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain
only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.
·
In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
·
The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if
the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the
meeting is a committee meeting).
·
However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a
pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.
·
All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a
committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain,
subject to any limitations in standing orders.
Independent Māori Statutory Board
·
Members of the Independent Māori
Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.
·
Independent Māori Statutory Board
members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform
their role.
Staff
·
All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior
management) remain.
·
Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.
Local Board members
·
Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed
in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the matter
affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.
Council Controlled Organisations
·
Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain
only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled
Organisation.
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
ITEM TABLE OF
CONTENTS PAGE
1 Apologies 7
2 Declaration of Interest 7
3 Confirmation of Minutes 7
4 Petitions 7
5 Public Input 7
6 Local Board Input 7
7 Extraordinary Business 7
8 Notices of Motion 8
9 Update on Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management
forward work programme and business plan 9
10 Update on the draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency
Management Group Plan 15
11 Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Local Board
Work Programme 19
12 Public Notification of Civil Defence Centres 23
13 Report on the household preparedness survey 27
14 Multi-unit Development Project 39
15 Māori Responsiveness Plan 43
16 Approval of new Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Alternate Group Controller 47
17 Consideration of Extraordinary Items
At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Declaration of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Wednesday, 16 December 2015, as a true and
correct record.
|
4 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order
7.7 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Democracy Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day
prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting
Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet
the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes
is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes
speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
6 Local Board Input
Standing Order
6.2 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that
Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this
time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall
wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak. The
meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not
meet the requirements of Standing Orders.
This right is
in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
7 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time
when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general
business of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be
discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
8 Notices of Motion
At the close of
the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Update on
Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management forward work programme and
business plan
File No.: CP2016/04494
Purpose
1. To update the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management (CDEM) Group committee (the committee) on its work
programme, and key projects of interest to the committee.
Executive
Summary
2. The committee agreed its
strategic forward work programme for the 2015/2016 financial year at its
meeting in December 2015 (resolution number CIV/2015/44). Implementation of the
forward work programme is supported by key projects sitting in the CDEM business
plan.
3. This report provides an update
on key projects within the business plan that support the strategic forward
work programme of the committee.
|
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) receive the update on the
Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management forward work programme and
business plan.
|
Comments
4. In December 2015, the committee
approved the forward work programme which enables the committee to manage its
workflow and deliver on its priorities for the 2015/16 financial year. It also
provides direction to advise council officers of current and future work to
enable committee decision-making and support committee oversight of key
projects.
5. The forward work programme is
developed around the following three key areas:
· Strategy
and policy development
· Legislative
change
· Strategic
initiatives or projects.
6. Reports on this agenda address a
number of the key areas of the committee’s strategic work programme, including
an update on the development of the draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency
Management Group Plan, and engagement with local boards.
7. The reporting requirements of
the forward work programme will continue to be delivered to the committee, as
necessary, supported by a CDEM business plan. The CDEM business plan provides
council officers with a more detailed programme of work to deliver on the key
areas of the forward work programme.
8. An update on the CDEM business
plan is appended at Attachment A. The table shows how key objectives in the
business plan align to the committee’s forward work programme, and provides an
update on progress against those objectives.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
9. No consultation with local
boards was undertaken for the purposes of this report. A key component of this
year’s work programme is the development of the draft Group Plan which provides
an opportunity to better engage with local boards on civil defence and
emergency management.
Māori
impact statement
10. No consultation with Māori
was undertaken for the purposes of this report. Once completed, this work
programme will include a regular update on the implementation of the Māori
Responsiveness Plan.
Implementation
11. There are no implementation
issues arising from this report.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Update on the forward work programme
|
11
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Kiri Maxwell – Senior Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and
Emergency Management
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Update on the draft Auckland Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Plan
File No.: CP2016/04400
|
ü Reduction
|
ü Readiness
|
ü Response
|
ü Recovery
|
Purpose
1. To note that
consultation on the draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Plan
(draft Group Plan) commenced in February 2016, with the hearing of submissions
scheduled for May 2016.
Executive
Summary
2. The committee
approved the draft Group Plan for consultation at its meeting in December 2015.
Consultation on the draft Group Plan commenced in February 2016 and will
conclude on 18 April 2016. The consultation is supported by a public information
campaign. A date for the hearing of submissions on the draft Group Plan has
been set for May 2016.
3. This report
provides an update on the consultation process to date, and advises the next
steps to formally agree the draft Group Plan.
|
Recommendations
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) note that
consultation on the draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Plan commenced in February 2016.
b) note that the
hearing of submissions on the draft Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency
Management Group Plan will take place in May 2016.
|
Comments
4. Following its
approval by the committee in December 2015, the draft Group Plan was released
for public consultation in February 2016, with the consultation period open
until 18 April 2016. At the time of writing, a total of 12 submissions had
been received.
5. The CDEM
department has worked with council’s Communications and Engagement department
to develop a marketing and publicity campaign to raise awareness and motivate
Aucklanders to make a submission on the draft Group Plan.
6. The campaign
focuses on getting people to rank what they think ‘we’ (the CDEM Group) or
‘you’ (members of the public and the wider community) should do first in the
case of a disaster. The answers are ranked as a percentage which allows
participants in the campaign to see what question ranks the highest with
others. The campaign will appear in print and digital media, supported by a
strong social media campaign. Below is an example of the campaign.
Figure 1: Example of publicity on the draft Group Plan
consultation
7. Since the
beginning of the public consultation, there has been a significant increase in
media coverage, with positive and proactive reporting both regionally and nationally.
8. Joint summary
documents and submission forms have been placed in all Council service centres,
libraries and local board offices to accompany the draft Group Plan as a
reference document. These documents have been translated into New Zealand Sign
Language (using a digital video platform), Te Reo Māori, Hindi, Mandarin and Samoan. Submitters who have indicated they
wish to be heard can be heard in the above languages also.
9. The draft Group
Plan has been included on the agenda for all Auckland Council Advisory Panels
and local boards. Any feedback received will be reviewed by staff and provided
to the hearings panel prior to adoption of the draft Group Plan.
10. The formal
hearing date has been scheduled for Friday, 20 May 2016 at 9:30am, with a
reserve day scheduled for Tuesday 24 May 2016.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
11. The draft Group
Plan has been included on all local board agendas. Any feedback received will
be reviewed by staff and provided to the hearings panel prior to adoption of
the draft Group Plan. Early feedback from local boards suggests local board
members; in particular CDEM portfolio holders, want to better understand and
agree their roles and responsibilities before, during and after an emergency.
With this in mind, the CDEM department has initiated a project to develop a
framework for local board members which will resolve the above requirements (as
outlined in the Auckland CDEM local board work programme report included on
this agenda).
12. CDEM staff have
also attended ‘Have your Say’ (HYSE) events organised by local boards as part
of the Annual Plan consultation and engagement to introduce the draft Group
Plan to attendees.
Māori
impact statement
13. The Group Plan
project team will be working with Te Waka Angamua to ensure that iwi have the
opportunity to provide formal feedback on the Group Plan during the consultation phase (until 18 April).
Implementation
14. As noted in paragraph 11 above, a date for formal hearings on
submissions to the draft Group Plan has been set.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Kiri Maxwell – Senior Advisor
Readiness
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Dragicevich – Director Civil Defence
and Emergency Management
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Local
Board Work Programme
File No.: CP2016/04287
|
ü Reduction
|
ü Readiness
|
ü Response
|
ü Recovery
|
Purpose
1. To update the
Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group committee (the committee)
on the proposed Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) work programme
for local boards.
Executive
Summary
2. At its meeting in November 2015, the committee resolved to invite
local boards to have a greater role in emergency management ‘in order to
expedite greater engagement with local communities to improve individual
responsibility for preparedness, community resilience responsibilities and
maximising opportunities with partners’ (resolution number CIV/2015/38).
3. A key action in
the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan (draft Group Plan)
is to “Advocate for each local board to develop its own local board CDEM plan
and include reference to CDEM plan in local board area plans.”
4. Although the
draft Group Plan remains subject to consultation, the CDEM team has been
working with local board members to identify and apply necessary actions to
those areas which require immediate attention. This report recommends the
committee note the actions to date to increase local board involvement in CDEM.
|
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) note that local boards are being invited to submit
formal feedback on the draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group
Plan and that this will inform the development of the civil defence and
emergency management work programme for local boards.
|
Comments
5. In recognition of Auckland’s shared governance structure, the
committee resolved to invite local boards to consider a more formal role in
emergency management planning across the 4Rs (reduction, readiness, response
and recovery) for Auckland. It was noted that local boards could play a key
role in encouraging community engagement to build resilience and emergency
management practices at the local level.
6. Workshops were held with local boards as part of the informal engagement phase on the development of the draft
Auckland CDEM Group Plan. These workshops focused on understanding the
challenges and opportunities local boards may experience supporting response
and recovery efforts of their communities in local emergencies. The key
concerns noted by local boards in relation to CDEM are as follows;
· a better understanding
of roles and responsibilities of local board members, specifically CDEM
portfolio holders
· a communication and
two-way flow of information to ensure good situational awareness
· an appropriate use of council
facilities and resources
· CDEM education and
awareness levels of local board members and community
· working together
to build community resilience and the safety of staff and community
· ensuring
that local boards champion resilience and are competent to deliver their CDEM
responsibilities.
7. To
expedite and encourage engagement with local board members, the CDEM team has
been working with local board members to identify and apply necessary actions to
those areas which require immediate attention (above). For example,
discussions have been held on the specific roles and responsibilities of local
board members during an emergency in their area.
8. Subject
to approval of the draft Group Plan, it is anticipated that a clearly defined
local board CDEM work programme will be developed covering the following
topics;
· Governance
· Roles
and responsibilities (before – as advocated, during and after – as leaders) of
local board members
· 4Rs
framework – Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery
· Business
Continuity Planning
· Personal
preparedness
· Community
Resilience
· Leadership
· Response
management – including information and communication.
9. As
well as by CDEM staff, local boards will be supported to progress local CDEM
plans and associated work programmes through the development of reference
material, the possible creation of an e-learning platform, and the
investigation of an exercise programme. It is expected that this work will be
completed by the end of April 2016.
10. In her review of
key learnings following the Christchurch earthquakes, Dr Sarah Wright noted
that “Key staff who will be involved in civil
defence responses should receive role-specific civil defence training. The
Christchurch earthquakes have highlighted the need for an up-to-date disaster
plan for all units across the council”.[1] This applies to
all people involved in CDEM, including elected members.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
11. CDEM staff are
seeking formal feedback from all local boards on the draft Auckland CDEM Group
Plan to ensure the implications for local boards are understood and agreed.
CDEM staff have also attended Have your Say (Annual Plan 2016/2017
consultation) events in local communities to introduce the draft CDEM Group
Plan.
12. CDEM staff
continue to work with local board members on the development of this work
programme and will use existing insights to inform its development.
Māori
impact statement
13. It is
anticipated that the development of the local board CDEM work programme will
give effect to the CDEM Māori Responsiveness Plan (once in effect) to
ensure the programme strengthens the capability of Māori through
engagement and planning with local boards to support communities to build a
resilient Auckland.
Implementation
14. The development
of local CDEM plans is subject to consultation on the draft Group Plan. As
such, this work programme will formally proceed only after the adoption of the
Group Plan.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Keith Suddes – Manager Emergency
Coordination Centre
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Dragicevich – Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Director
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Public Notification of Civil Defence Centres
File No.: CP2016/04085
|
ü Reduction
|
ü Readiness
|
ü Response
|
ü Recovery
|
Purpose
1. To approve the
pre-publication of venues that have been identified as potential Civil Defence
Centres.
Executive
Summary
2. A Civil Defence
Centre (CDC) is a facility established and managed by Civil Defence and
Emergency Management (CDEM) during the response and recovery phases to support
members of the community affected by a disruptive event. CDCs are for the
assistance of the public, and used for any purpose including public information,
evacuation and access to services, depending on the needs of the community.
3. This report
discusses the benefits and potential challenges for pre-advertising CDC
locations to the public, and recommends that the committee agree to publish the
names of these locations.
|
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) approve the
publication of Civil Defence Centre locations, in agreement with venue
owners.
|
Comments
4. Auckland CDEM
has agreements in place designating 75 venues as potential CDC locations.
Venues are selected to provide a range of options for managing community needs
that arise during response and into the recovery phase where appropriate.
Venues include medium and large community and commercial sites, council owned
venues, churches and some schools. Venues are chosen or considered for their
size, ease of activation, geographic location and amenity. Designation of a CDC
provides CDEM staff with the ability to establish and maintain relationships with
venue owners and managers. It also gives CDEM welfare support teams the
opportunity to utilise a CDC for training workshops and exercises on site.
5. The decision to
activate a CDC is made by the Group Welfare Manager in consultation with the
Auckland Welfare Co-ordination Group. The authorisation for opening a CDC rests
with the Group Controller. A CDC is activated based on the most appropriate
venue for that particular emergency event. A CDC, chosen for its suitability,
is not operational until it is approved by the Controller and opened by
appropriately trained and vetted welfare support teams.
6. Current
designation agreements with the 35 non-council operated venues do not provide
for the pre-publication of their venues.
7. Where the
community takes the lead and owns the Community Response Plan (CRP) for
supporting its own people in the immediate aftermath of an event, the community
may elect to identify locally based sites to be listed as evacuation centres or
community hubs. These are made public to local people through the provision of
flyers in the local area. These venues are not formally designated by CDEM, as
they are a community resource. This would support the advantages for publicising CDCs.
8. CDEM has
designation agreements with three marae, and discussions have been held with a
further three marae to investigate partnership models. These discussions are
being pursued with a view to implementing agreements with marae communities
across Auckland from 2016.
9. Enquiries
received by Council’s Call Centres throughout the region requesting details of
CDCs demonstrates the desire of communities to be mindful of the facilities
that may be made available following a disruptive event. Publicising CDCs
through Council’s media channels could make communities aware of the CDC
options in their area.
10. As the Auckland
region contains a large number of potential sites, selection of appropriate
sites will be important. Publicising sites in advance may ease confusion and
accelerate affected people reaching the CDCs and receiving assistance.
11. Auckland Council
has a wide range of buildings that may be suitable in an event and has the
economies of scale to react in a crisis using Council’s resources, whether or
not an emergency declaration is in place.
12. Although
privately owned centres may be used, for example, due to their size or
location, preference will be given to using Council buildings where
appropriate. This will be an advantage in being able to offer communities rapid
assistance without a declaration.
Ministry of Civil Defence and other CDEM
Groups
13. The Ministry of
Civil Defence and Emergency Management advises that the decision to
pre-publicise CDCs is a decision for individual CDEM Groups. The recently
updated Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management Welfare Guidelines
are silent on the issue.
14. Waikato and
Wellington CDEM groups advise that formally designated CDC locations are not
pre-publicised, due to the challenges around managing
community expectations that a publicised centre will be open. Christchurch
City Council is currently considering pre-publication of designated CDC
locations.
15. Within the
Auckland region, the former North Shore City, Rodney District, Waitakere City,
Papakura District and Franklin District Councils all publicised CDCs with good
CDEM brand awareness in the communities.
Recommendation
16. In conclusion,
CDEM recommends the publication of CDCs, with the approval of the venue
owners. Council’s ability to publicise and to message
communities in an emergency regarding CDCs will be advantageous in offering
prompt and specific assistance.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
17. No consultation
with local boards was undertaken for the purposes of this report.
Māori
impact statement
18. As noted in
paragraph 8 above, there are designation agreements with three marae, and there
are currently discussions with other marae. Although some marae communities
advise that their primary responsibility is to their own community, we are
continuing to explore partnership opportunities for wider engagement. The
designation relationship for marae and other models of relationship are
currently under discussion to align with Auckland Council’s Maori
Responsiveness Framework, and the aspirations of these communities.
Implementation
19. Council owned
CDCs will only require internal consultation with departments to seek
permission to designate and publicise.
20. Publication of
non-Council owned CDCs will require venue owners to be contacted to seek
permission for publication. Staff resource would be required to undertake this
process. There are no financial implications.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Catherine Gilhooly – Manager Welfare
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kiri Maxwell – Senior Advisor Readiness
John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and
Emergency Management
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Report on the household preparedness survey
File No.: CP2016/04273
|
Reduction
|
ü Readiness
|
Response
|
Recovery
|
Purpose
1. To agree that
the results of the 2016 household preparedness survey inform future development
and measurement of emergency preparedness activities.
Executive
Summary
2. A joint survey
between council’s Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) and Waste
Solutions teams was completed in March 2016.This survey gave the CDEM team
insights into the high-levels of household preparedness, perceived hazards
knowledge and awareness and will guide future emergency preparedness
strategies.
3. In summary, the
survey illustrated that respondents have a good awareness and understanding of
the types of hazards that could affect Auckland. Respondents also stated that
they have the necessary preparedness measures in place to look after themselves
in an emergency. The survey also revealed that in an emergency, most would
turn to family in the first instance for information, help or support.
4. This report
recommends that the committee agrees that the survey results inform future
measurement of emergency preparedness activities to ensure they are strong,
sustainable and build community resilience.
|
Recommendations
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) agree that the
survey results inform future development and measurement of emergency
preparedness activities.
|
Comments
Background
5. At the end of
2015, an opportunity was presented to incorporate specific questions on
emergency preparedness as part of a regular household survey on attitudes
towards waste management undertaken by Auckland Council Waste Solutions team.
6. The draft
Auckland CDEM Group Plan, which is currently out for consultation, advises:
‘We need to identify those that are at
greater risk, who will need extra support during and after disaster. Our
strategies must reflect Auckland’s diversity and be inclusive of our most
vulnerable communities. Involving them in the development of any strategies
means their collective objectives are met and they are ultimately accountable
for their present and future condition’.
7. The survey was
a suitable vehicle to help us better understand our communities to meet the
above objective.
Survey
Results
8. Gravitas was
contracted to undertake a mixed-method survey of 1453 Aucklanders from 18
January 2016 to 18 February 2016. A copy of the full survey results (as they
apply to CDEM) are appended as Attachment A. Respondents were asked about their
knowledge of likely emergencies in Auckland and understanding of preparedness.
9. Those surveyed
have a good awareness and understanding of the types of hazards that could
affect Auckland and have the necessary preparedness measures in place to look
after themselves in an emergency. In addition, the survey revealed that most
people would look to family in the first instance for information, help or
support. This detail reinforces the need to continue to include household and
family emergency preparedness messages in on-going communications and
engagement activities.
10. The results are
noted in Tables 1, 2 and 3 below.
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Don’t know
|
I don’t, but someone in the household
does
|
Unsure – I think so, but unsure if it’s
enough / correct / etc.
|
|
I have a good understanding of the
types of disasters that could occur in Auckland and the chances of them
occurring.
|
68%
|
8%
|
6%
|
1%
|
17%
|
Table 1: There
is a positive level of perceived understanding about Auckland disasters.
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Don’t know
|
I don’t, but someone in the household
does
|
Unsure – I think so, but unsure if it’s
enough / correct / etc.
|
|
I have a good understanding of what
being prepared means for an emergency situation.
|
64%
|
5%
|
7%
|
2%
|
21%
|
Table 2: There
is a positive level of understanding on what being prepared means.
|
|
Yes
|
No
|
Don’t know
|
I don’t, but someone in the household
does
|
Unsure – I think so, but unsure if it’s
enough / correct / etc.
|
|
I have the necessary emergency
items needed to survive a disaster, such as tinned food, toilet paper, torch,
spare batteries and so on.
|
52%
|
27%
|
6%
|
1%
|
13%
|
Table 3: Over half of the residents indicated they had
the necessary emergency items to survive a disaster
11. The survey
design took note of household type in order to provide CDEM with an
understanding of how different groups rate levels of preparedness. This
provides insight into who is well prepared, and who may require targeting for
future preparedness measures. The survey confirmed assumptions that people who
were least prepared were residents of multi-unit developments, or who
identified as Pacific or Asian. These groups are identified by CDEM as
vulnerable groups who have different requirements for emergency preparedness
than the rest of the populace, for example, risk acceptability, communication
methods and channels and community development and engagement.
12. An example from
the survey is noted in Table 4 below:
|
Statement
|
Total % Y
|
Groups significantly more
likely to say “Yes” to this statement include those:
|
Groups significantly less
likely to say “Yes” to this statement include those:
|
|
I have the necessary emergency
items needed to survive a disaster, such as tinned food, toilet paper, torch,
spare batteries and so on.
|
52%
|
- Aged 65 years or older (81%) or
45-64 years (68%)
- With a household income of $150,001
or more (66%)
- Who own their home (64%)
- Of NZ European descent (58%)
- Living in a stand-alone house (55%)
|
- Who rent – either from HNZ (28%) or
from someone else (38%)
- Living in an terraced dwelling or
apartment (both 37%)
- Of Pacific Island (39%) or Asian
(40%) descent
- Aged under 45 years old (40%)
- With a household income
$50,001-$70,000 (40%);
- Living in a 6 person household
(41%)
|
Table 4:
Example of results based on household type
13. CDEM was also
interested in understanding the way in which the groups surveyed sourced
information to provide insights in to how to deliver future preparedness
measures. This is summarised in Table 5 below.
|
If there was
a civil defence emergency, who would you turn to for things like information,
help, and support?
This
includes civil defence emergencies like storms, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions,
and earthquakes, etc.
|
Prompted
(Select from list)
(number surveyed 995)
|
Unprompted
(Top of mind)
(number surveyed 458)
|
|
Family
|
64
|
11
|
|
Public Media
(e.g. News on radio, tv., online)
|
56
|
50
|
|
Friends
|
55
|
5
|
|
Auckland Council
|
46
|
14
|
|
Next door neighbour(s)
|
44
|
12
|
|
Social Media
(e.g. Facebook, twitter, etc.)
|
36
|
6
|
|
People in the
general neighbourhood/down the road
|
35
|
7
|
|
Central
Government
|
29
|
5
|
|
Citizens Advice
Bureau
|
15
|
1
|
|
Church
|
11
|
1
|
|
Sports Club
|
2
|
0
|
|
Civil Defence
|
1
|
16
|
|
Emergency
Services – Police, Fire, Ambulance
|
0
|
18
|
|
Neighbourhood
watch/group/association
|
0
|
2
|
|
Local
School/community hall
|
0
|
2
|
|
Red
Cross/Salvation Army
|
0
|
1
|
|
Don’t know
|
7
|
13
|
Table 5: Summary of results showing how households access CDEM
information
Next
Steps
14. The results of
this survey provide a measure for future emergency preparedness activities. The
information collected on those that are more or less likely to prepare for an
emergency gives the CDEM department an opportunity to target and prioritise
preparedness strategies and activities.
15. For example,
those that are less likely to be prepared for an emergency, CDEM will work with
key influencers in the community to support the delivery of specific
communications to those communities of interest or vulnerable groups. For
those who are more likely to be prepared for an emergency it is proposed that
we conduct future research into the motivators and sustainability of
preparedness measures to support the review of the public education strategy.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
16. No local board
views were sought in the development of this report. This information can be
provided to local boards when CDEM work with local boards to develop local CDEM
plans.
Māori
impact statement
17. The survey invited respondents to note the ethinc group or groups
they identified with. One particular finding related to Māori households
was that Māori are
significant more likely to store water than any other ethnic group in Auckland
(38 per cent) against 27 per cent of the general population. More research
will need to be conducted to understand this result.
18. Other information from the survey relating to Māori households
will inform the development of the CDEM Māori Responsiveness Plan.
Implementation
19. This survey provides baseline data for the development of future
emergency preparedness activities.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Auckland Council Waste and Civil Defence Survey: Final
Key Findings for Civil Defence Questions
|
31
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Jackie Bubb – Emergency Management
Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Dragicevich – Director Civil
Defence and Emergency Management
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
|
Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Multi-unit Development Project
File No.: CP2016/04366
|
ü Reduction
|
ü Readiness
|
¨ Response
|
¨ Recovery
|
Purpose
1. To endorse the of the collaborative approach that Civil
Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM), Waste Solutions and Environmental
Services are taking to support better communication and engagement activities with residents of multi-unit developments (MUDs).
Executive
Summary
2. It is
recognised that there are distinctive challenges when considering emergency
preparedness amongst residents who live in MUDs. Findings from a recent survey
Auckland Council survey conducted into Aucklanders awareness of hazards and
preparedness in disasters, found that residents living in apartments are
significantly less likely to understand potential disasters, their effects, and
to be prepared to respond to an emergency.
3. The challenge of communicating and engaging with residents of MUDs
is shared by other council departments, including Waste Solutions and
Environmental Services. As such, staff identified an opportunity to take a collaborative
approach to strategic engagement and key messaging through the body corporate
network. It is expected that this approach will
provide an opportunity to share Auckland Council resources, pre-existing
relationships, innovative solutions and, from a customer-focused perspective,
be more streamlined in council’s approach.
4. This
report provides the Civil Defence and Emergency Management committee (the
committee) with an overview of the project, and requests that the committee
endorse the collaborative approach to communication and engagement with MUD
residents.
|
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) endorse the collaborative
approach that Civil Defence and Emergency Management and Waste Solutions and
Environmental Services are taking to support better communication and
engagement activities with residents of multi-unit developments.
|
Comments
5. An
important element in developing resilient communities is creating a sense of
community connectedness. The typically higher turner over of residential
occupancy in MUDs presents a challenge for CDEM (and other council departments)
in terms of how we engage with residents in MUDs. In addition, people who live
in MUDs are more ethnically diverse and have a higher proportion of young
people, both of which raise issues of not only communication challenges, but
vulnerability in emergency management measures. The Ethnic Peoples Advisory
Panel noted in its informal feedback on the draft Group Plan that many
international students residing in MUDs do not have connections to family or
place that can support them in an emergency.
6. The
low levels of preparedness amongst MUD residents compared to residents living
in standalone houses was illustrated in the joint survey conducted by CDEM and
Waste Solutions early this year. The table below shows the results from the
survey.
|
|
Residents living in a stand-alone
house
|
Residents living in an apartment
|
|
I have a good
understanding of what the effects would be if a disaster struck my area.
|
61%
|
38%
|
|
I have a good understanding of what being
prepared means for an emergency situation.
|
67%
|
49%
|
|
I have a good understanding of the types
of disasters that could occur in Auckland and the chances of them occurring.
|
71%
|
58%
|
|
I have the necessary emergency items
needed to survive a disaster, such as tinned food, toilet paper, torch, spare
batteries and so on.
|
55%
|
37%
|
Table 1: Understanding of emergency preparedness of residents in MUDs versus
residents in a standalone house
7. The
lower levels of preparedness suggest that current communications and engagement
activities used by CDEM are not permeating with residents of MUDs. Council’s
Waste Solutions and Environmental Services unit has similarly noted a need to
better target its key messages of waste minimisation and low carbon living to
residents in MUDs. Therefore, the three units have decided to collaborate on a
different means of engaging and communicating key messages to MUD residents.
8. The three units
are investigating how to work through body corporates to communicate with
residents in MUDs. Body corporates are able to make decisions over building
arrangements, and therefore are the appropriate forum to agree future planning
activities, for example, development of emergency planning procedures and waste
minimisation plans. A proposed outcome of this project is the development of a
joint template to enable body corporates to develop emergency planning
procedures and waste plans simultaneously.
9. Infrastructure
and Environmental Services (I&ES) has significant pre-existing
relationships with body corporate management companies and body corporate or
building manager contacts. CDEM, Waste Solutions and I&ES have agreed to
leverage off these existing relationships, develop contacts collectively and to
message and engage with key contacts in a unified method. It is expected this
will increase efficiency across council and provide a more streamlined approach
to messages being received by customers. A joint forum
between the body corporate groups and the three units is currently being
scoped, and is expected to occur in mid-2016.
10. From
a CDEM perspective, the intended outcome of this MUD project is to improve the
levels of preparedness amongst apartment residents. Research soon to be released
by the University of Auckland (UoA) will provide insight around the
demographics of Auckland apartment residents and how these characteristics
impact emergency preparedness measures. This will include ethnicity, household
composition and age2. There will be opportunity to incorporate preparedness
measures targeting the MUD specific characteristics under the recommendations
from UoA.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
11. To support the
project, a communications and engagement plan will be developed. Local board
members will be kept informed of the project through the plan. To date, the
Waitematā and
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Civil
Defence and Emergency Management portfolio holders are aware of the project and
will be updated as progress is made.
Māori
impact statement
12. The percentage
of Māori residing in
apartment buildings is unknown. It is recognised that this is a gap, and it is
acknowledged that there could be opportunity to investigate this in future.
Implementation
13. There are no
implementation issues arising from this report. Funding is available within
existing work programme budgets across CDEM, Waste Solutions and Environmental
Services units.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Jackie Bubb – Emergency Management
Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Dragicevich – Director Civil
Defence and Emergency Management
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Maori Responsiveness Plan
File No.: CP2016/04286
|
ü Reduction
|
ü Readiness
|
ü Response
|
ü Recovery
|
Purpose
1. To endorse the
development and implementation of a Māori Responsiveness Plan (MRP) for
the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) department.
Executive
Summary
2. Auckland is
home to the world’s largest Māori population. CDEM is committed to meeting
its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi). The
development of a CDEM Māori Responsiveness Plan (MRP) will identify how
the department can have a productive relationship with Māori communities, and support those
communities to increase their resilience and be involved in planning for
emergencies.
3. It is envisioned that the CDEM MRP will have both an internal focus
on supporting staff with professional development to grow awareness of
Māori outcomes, and an external focus on ensuring a mechanism that enables
CDEM to engage and communicate with mana whenua and mataawaka on issues of
resilience and emergency management planning.
4. This report
provides an update to the committee on the development of the CDEM MRP, and
asks that the committee endorse the development of the MRP.
|
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) endorse the development of a Māori
Responsiveness Plan for the Civil Defence and Emergency Management
department.
|
Comments
5. Auckland
Council has developed a Māori
Responsiveness Framework as a mechanism for Council departments to implement
their responsibilities to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Māori Responsiveness Framework has three goals as noted below:
· An empowered organisation
· Effective Māori participation in
democracy
· Strong Māori communities.
6. A key tool for
departments to identify how their activity can support the goals of the
framework is the development of Māori Responsiveness Plans (MRP). Additional guidance has been given
in the production of the CDEM MRP with the development of a toolkit by Te Waka
Angamua which identifies five primary steps in developing a MRP:
· Establishment and initial awareness raising
· Identify and establish project team and
current state assessment
· Future state planning
· Action planning: three-year Māori
Responsiveness Plan
· Review and refresh.
7. The CDEM
department recognises the need for an MRP which incorporates both an internal
and external focus. The development of an MRP provides an opportunity for CDEM
staff to undertake professional development to increase awareness and knowledge
of Te Ao Māori.
8. The proposed
external focus of the CDEM MRP will ensure that Te Ao Māori is
considered and incorporated under the 13 key CDEM activity areas proposed in
the draft CDEM Group Plan (currently under consultation). These activity
areas are as follows:
· Knowledge through education
· Volunteer participation
· Emergency management planning
· Business and organisational resilience
· Strong partnerships
· Capability and capacity
· Information and communication technologies
· Build Back Better
· Auckland’s communities
· A safe city
· Co-created research
· Leadership and governance
· Liveable City.
9. The initial
steps have been taken to collect and review the current state of Māori
responsiveness and engagement across the CDEM team. The results will be
utilised to develop key objectives that align with the department’s current
state analysis. In addition, providing a foundation of future state activities
and projects that involve or impact on Māori communities.
10. The CDEM MRP
will align with the Māori Responsiveness Framework as outlined in the
Auckland Plan to support mana whenua and mataawaka aspirations and provide
opportunities for future contribution.
11. Early engagement
with mana whenua and mataawaka in the right forum is critical to delivering on
our commitment to Māori. Our MRP will set guidelines, including resource
provisions, for effective communication and engagement with Māori against
CDEM business planning and supporting work programmes.
12. In developing
our MRP the project team will incorporate lessons learned from emergency events
across New Zealand, for example, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu experiences
in the response, rebuild and recovery of Christchurch after the 22 February
2011 earthquake.
13. Following the
Christchurch earthquakes, Ngāi Tahu formed and led the Māori Earthquake Recovery Network
through the mission statement and Māori value ‘aroha nui ki te tangata’
(extend love to all people). The network provided support to the wider
Christchurch community aided by pre-existing community linkages, a built
infrastructure to provide displaced residents with shelter, established
linkages to government agencies, and traditional authority in the impacted
area.
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
14. No consultation
with local boards was undertaken for the purposes of this report. Local boards
have been asked how they want to be involved in civil defence and emergency
management as part of the consultation on the draft Auckland Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Plan.
Māori
impact statement
15. The development
of a CDEM MRP provides an opportunity to ensure that CDEM activity supports the
achievement of outcomes for Māori.
16. It is important
to note that Māori, in particular mana whenua, are under considerable
pressure to engage across all sectors of the council, local boards and council-controlled
organisations. Mataawaka also experience similar demands from council to
respond.
Implementation
17. A draft plan
will be available for the next meeting to be approved by the committee for
implementation into the CDEM work programme.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Thomas Harre – Land Management Risk
Assessment Policy Advisor, Rural Fire
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Dragicevich – Director Civil
Defence and Emergency Management
|
|
Civil Defence
and Emergency Management Group Committee
22 March 2016
|
|
Approval of new Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Alternate Group Controller
File No.: CP2016/03857
|
Reduction
|
ü Readiness
|
ü Response
|
ü Recovery
|
Purpose
1. To approve the appointment of a
new alternate controller.
Executive
Summary
2. The Auckland
Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Group is required, under section
26 of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) Act 2002, to appoint a
suitably qualified and experienced person to be group controller for its area.
This is currently the responsibility of the Civil Defence and Emergency
Management Director.
3. The Auckland
CDEM Group must also appoint at least one suitably qualified and experienced
person to be available if the Group Controller is absent for any reason. In a
large scale emergency that may last for a protracted period of time, several
alternate controllers may be required. This report recommends that the CDEMG
Committee appoint a new alternate controller.
|
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) approve the appointment of
Aaron Davis – Head of Emergency Management, as an alternate controller.
|
Comments
4. The Auckland
CDEM Group is required under section 26 of the CDEM Act 2002 to appoint a
suitably qualified and experienced person to be group controller for its area.
This is currently the responsibility of the Civil Defence and Emergency
Management Director.
5. The Auckland
CDEM Group must also appoint at least one suitably qualified and experienced
person to be available if the Group Controller is absent or any reason. In a
large scale emergency that may last for a protracted period of time, several
alternate controllers may be required. A pool of controllers provides
resilience in this key role during an emergency.
6. As three of the
previous alternate controllers have left Auckland Council to ensure that a
sufficient number of qualified and experienced alternate controllers are
available to support a large-scale emergency scenario, it is recommended that
the CDEMG Committee appoints an additional alternate controller.
7. It is
recommended that Aaron Davis, Head of Emergency Management Operations CDEM, is
appointed as an alternate controller. Aaron is a senior manager with
considerable experience in emergency and crisis management; including the Christchurch
earthquakes and the 2009 Victoria “black Saturday” bush fires. In addition, he
has had experience in managing a significant range of hazards that Auckland may
be exposed to, for example, major storms. As required by all alternate
controllers, Aaron has familiarised himself with the Auckland Alternate
Controller’s Induction July 2015 training and Response Management, Director’s
Guideline for CDEM Group and Local Controllers [DGL06/08].
Consideration
Local
Board views and implications
8. No consultation with local
boards was required for this report. Local boards have been invited to comment
on their role in CDEM as part of the current consultation on the draft Group
Plan.
Māori
impact statement
9. No consultation with Māori
was required for the purposes of this report.
Implementation
10. There are no implementation
issues arising from this report.
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
Signatories
|
Author
|
Emma Joyce - Relationship Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and
Emergency Management
|
