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:
|
Friday, 20
May 2016
9.30am
Room 1
Level 26, 135 Albert Street, Auckland
|
|
Civil Defence and Emergency Management
Group Committee – Hearing of submissions on Auckland Civil Defence Emergency
Group Plan 2016-2021
OPEN AGENDA
|
MEMBERSHIP
|
Chairperson
|
Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
|
|
|
Deputy Chairperson
|
Cr 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 two named
voting members
|
|
Elaine Stephenson
Democracy Advisor
17 May 2016
Contact Telephone: (09) 890 8117
Email: elaine.stephenson@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz
|
TERMS
OF REFERENCE
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.
An apology from
Cr CM Penrose has 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 Tuesday, 22 March 2016, 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
This is a
hearing of verbal presenations in support of submissions made to the Auckland
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021.
6 Local Board Input
Local Boards
will have the opportunity to provide verbal presentations in support of their
feedback to the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan
2016-2021.
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
20 May 2016
|
|
Summary of
submissions on draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan
2016-2021
File No.: CP2016/09272
Purpose
1. To provide
high-level analysis of key themes contained in submissions to the draft Civil
Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021 to support the hearing of
submissions.
Executive
Summary
2. The draft Civil
Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021 (draft group plan) was
open for submissions from 15 February to 18 April 2016. A total of 87 submissions were received during this consultation
period, with 14 submitters requesting the opportunity to speak in support of
their submission at a public hearing as part of this committee meeting.
3. This report provides high-level analysis of key themes contained in
submissions to the draft group plan to inform the hearings of submissions, and
to support the committee in its deliberations.
|
Recommendations
That the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group Committee:
a) receive the
relevant submissions on the draft Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan
2016-2021.
b) thank
submitters for their verbal presentations on the draft Civil Defence
Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021.
c) consider any
potential amendments to the draft Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Plan 2016-2021.
|
Comments
4. Auckland
Council is required to use the special consultative procedure outlined in the
Local Government Act 2002 to encourage feedback on the draft group plan. This
includes ensuring any person who submitted on the draft group plan is given the
opportunity to be heard by the Civil Defence and
Emergency Management Group committee (the committee).
5. Submitters were asked for feedback on a range of topics which
included:
· knowledge through
education;
· volunteer
participation;
· emergency management
planning;
· business and
organisational resilience;
· strong partnerships;
· response capability
and capacity;
· information and
communications technologies;
· build back better;
· a safe city;
· research; and
· building resilient
communities.
6. This report provides
a summary and brief analysis of key themes emerging from the submissions to
support the hearing of submissions, and to inform deliberations on the draft
group plan.
Submissions
7. A total of 87
submissions were made on the draft group plan, with 14 submitters requesting to
be heard through the submission process. Copies of all submissions to the draft
plan are appended as Attachment A (under separate cover). This includes 67
submissions from the public, feedback from 18 of 21 local boards, and formal
written feedback from the youth and seniors advisory panels.
8. Local boards and advisory panels were invited to provide feedback on
the draft group plan at their business meetings in March and April 2016. A
summary of their feedback is noted in paragraphs 16 to 20 below, with full
copies of their feedback appended as Attachment B (under separate cover).
9. At the time of
writing this report the Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) staff had
not comprehensively reviewed all public submissions or local board and advisory
panel feedback. For this reason, a summary of all public submissions and local
board and advisory panel feedback and recommendations will be distributed to
committee members prior to the hearing on 20 May, with hardcopy summaries available
at the hearing.
10. Of the 67 public
submissions, one submission was made through New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL)
using the submission process designed for this reason i.e. NZSL summary
document and submission form both translated to NZSL.
11. Of the
submitters that provided demographic information:
· 31 submitters answered gender information
with the results showing 18 identified as male and 13 identified as female
· 36 submitters answered age information
with the majority indicating they were 55 years of age or older (53 per cent)
· 79 per cent of the 39 submitters who
answered the ethnicity information indicated they identified as European
(please note, some submitters identify with more than one ethnicity).
12. A full
demographic summary is appended as Attachment C (under separate cover).
13. Public
submitters were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the consultation
topics. As these questions were only added to the feedback form after feedback
had commenced, not all submitters responded to this question. Table 1 below
indicates how submitters responded to the consultation topics.
|
Consultation Topic
|
Agree
|
%
|
Disagree
|
%
|
Other
|
%
|
Total
|
|
Knowledge
through education
|
20
|
59%
|
1
|
3%
|
13
|
38%
|
34
|
|
Volunteer
participation
|
22
|
63%
|
1
|
3%
|
12
|
34%
|
35
|
|
Emergency
management planning
|
20
|
67%
|
0
|
0%
|
10
|
33%
|
30
|
|
Business
and organisational resilience
|
17
|
61%
|
2
|
7%
|
9
|
32%
|
28
|
|
Our
partnerships
|
17
|
65%
|
2
|
8%
|
7
|
27%
|
26
|
|
Response
capability and capacity
|
17
|
65%
|
2
|
8%
|
7
|
27%
|
26
|
|
Information
and communication technologies
|
14
|
48%
|
5
|
17%
|
10
|
34%
|
29
|
|
Build
Back Better
|
15
|
63%
|
1
|
4%
|
8
|
33%
|
24
|
|
Building
a safe city
|
16
|
64%
|
1
|
4%
|
8
|
32%
|
25
|
|
Research
|
15
|
58%
|
0
|
0%
|
11
|
42%
|
26
|
|
Individual
readiness
|
15
|
54%
|
4
|
14%
|
9
|
32%
|
28
|
|
Community
responsibilities
|
15
|
58%
|
4
|
15%
|
7
|
27%
|
26
|
Table
1: Agreement with consultation topics
14. Many submitters
elected to provide feedback via way of prepared online or hardcopy form. Of the
50 responses received to this question, a total of 44 indicated they had read
the plan.
15. Submitters were
also asked whether they had read the draft group plan, and whether they found
it informative, easy to read and easy to understand. Figures
one to three below illustrate responses to those questions.
|
|
Response
|
Number
|
Percentage
|
|
Yes
|
37
|
80%
|
1.
No |
6
|
13%
|
1.
Unsure/Don’t know |
3
|
7%
|
1.
Total |
46
|
|
1.
Note – “Percentage” refers to percentage of submitters that responded
to the question, not overall and is rounded to the nearest 0.5 percent. |
Figure 1: Summary
of responses to question ‘was the plan informative?’
|
|
Response
|
Number
|
Percentage
|
|
Yes
|
36
|
78%
|
1.
No |
8
|
17%
|
1.
Unsure/Don’t know |
2
|
4%
|
1.
Total |
46
|
|
1.
Note – “Percentage” refers to percentage of submitters that responded
to the question, not overall and is rounded to the nearest 0.5 percent. |
Figure 2: Summary
of responses to question ‘was the plan easy to read?’
|
|
Response
|
Number
|
Percentage
|
|
Yes
|
31
|
66%
|
1.
No |
9
|
19%
|
1.
Unsure/Don’t know |
7
|
15%
|
1.
Total |
47
|
|
1.
Note – “Percentage” refers to percentage of submitters that responded
to the question, not overall and is rounded to the nearest 0.5 percent. |
Figure 3: Summary
of responses to question ‘was the plan easy to understand?’
16. The Hearings
Panel must ensure that it complies with the general principles of decision
making pursuant to section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the
decision-making requirements set out in the rest of that subpart of the Local
Government Act 2002. These requirements cover:
· identifying and assessing options;
· considering the views and preferences of affected or interested
people;
· identifying and explaining any decisions inconsistent with any
council policy or plan;
· providing Māori with the opportunity to contribute; and
· ensuring compliance with the principles of consultation.
Consideration
17. Formal feedback
on the draft Group Plan was sought from council’s advisory panels in March and
April 2016. Formal feedback on the draft Group Plan was sought from council’s
advisory panels in March and April 2016. Advisory panels provide guidance, both
as advisers, and as members of their community, to help generate a clearer
picture of considerations important to their respective communities.
18. Feedback was not
sought from the Rural Advisory Panel, due to the strong relationship with the
Rural Support Trust, or the Rainbow Panel, due to the panel being in their
infancy when informal engagement and formal consultation was conducted.
19. The Youth and
Senior Advisory Panels provided written feedback. Feedback from the other
panels was noted when staff presented the draft group plan at the panel
meetings. A summary of advisory panel feedback is provided in the Table 2
below.
|
Advisory
Panel
|
Feedback
|
|
Youth Advisory Panel
|
In general, the Youth Advisory
Panel agreed with the draft Group Plan; however, below are key themes from
the panel’s submission:
· Use technology to
increase awareness, knowledge and understanding;
· Work directly with
key stakeholders to create mutually beneficial volunteer opportunities;
· Opportunities to
equip communities for a community response;
· Impressed with the
focus on ensuring culturally sensitive engagement; and
· Concerned that the
plan is very theoretical, would be good to see more actionable and practical
outcomes and targets.
|
|
Ethnic Peoples Advisory Panel
|
In general the Ethnic People’s
Panel agreed with the draft Group Plan; however during the business meeting
the panel raised:
· Better understanding
of the difference in the communities CDEM needs to engage with .e.g.
communities of interest, communities of place .etc;
· Ensure that hazards
and risks, and actions to take before and after a disaster are understood and
practiced; and
· More interaction with
businesses to assist with business continuity planning and workplace
preparedness.
|
|
Pacific Peoples Advisory Panel
|
In general the Pacific Peoples
Advisory Panel agreed with the draft Group Plan; however during the business
meeting the panel raised:
· Better understanding
of the communities CDEM need to engage with to ensure any disaster resilient
strategies are effective;
· Ensure that any
disaster resilient strategies are co-designed by communities to ensure
ownership and participation; and
· Develop key
indicators of what defines a resilient individual, household, business,
community .etc. and measure against those key indicators.
|
|
Seniors Advisory Panel
|
In general the Seniors Advisory
Panel agreed with the draft Group Plan; however, below are key themes from
the panels submission:
· Need a stronger focus
of the social capital of emergency management .e.g. human responsiveness and
behavior change;
· Incorporate a
stronger health focus to build social cohesion;
· Citizen engagement,
regarding older people, and super-diversity must be included in all emergency
management planning and regarded as a strength; and
· Auckland’s resilience
platform, while not yet scoped, must include representation from Auckland’s
communities and researchers to support collaborative decision making
|
|
Disability Advisory Panel
|
In general the Disability Advisory
Panel agreed with the draft Group Plan; however, during the business meeting
the panel raised:
· Importance of
partnering with health-care providers or supported living caregivers to
ensure that there is appropriate regulatory requirements in place and as a
mechanism of reaching disabled communities, as an appropriate network for
communicating and supporting disabled communities;
· Importance
of providing accessible information, in a disaster such as digital platforms
and sign interpretation;
· Specific disability requirements for public education
strategies or programmes due to some of the unique outcomes experienced by
disabled people after the Christchurch earthquake
sequence .e.g. best practice guidance for assistance animals, mobility issues
· Requirement to collaborate with other CDEM
Groups across the country to ensure any disability issues are consistently
managed;
· Advocate that accessibility needs to be
considered in all communication plans;
· More appropriate platform for monitoring and
evaluation of individual and household preparedness; and
· Delivery of CDEM activities under the Disability
Action Plan.
|
Table
2: Summary of advisory panel meetings feedback
Local
Board views and implications
20. The draft plan
was made available to all local boards on their business meeting agendas in
March and April 2016. Local boards play a key part in helping Auckland’s
communities to better understand disaster risk, build resilience, effectively
respond to, and recover from disasters.
21. As
representatives of their communities, local boards also have the responsibility
for making decisions on local matters and providing strong local leadership,
during and after a disaster. For this reason it is imperative that local board
members understand their roles and responsibilities and are well-equipped to
perform these duties.
22. Feedback centred
on the process for working with local boards on the development of a framework
to guide the development of local board CDEM plans for their local board area
across the 4Rs: Reduction, Readiness, Response and Recovery.
23. This feedback
has been noted and will be used to inform how CDEM works with local boards to
develop and implement strategies and plans to create resilient communities.
Māori
impact statement
24. During the formal submission
process the kaitiaki (representatives) of Auckland’s 19 iwi were invited to
participate in the consultation of the draft group plan.
25. No response was received through
this invitation. The lack of response has been considered as an opportunity for
CDEM to ensure lessons learned from this project and process can be addressed
and rectified in future engagement and consultation with Māori
(iwi, mana whenua, mataawaka and whanau).
26. The development
of the CDEM Māori Responsiveness Plan will look to address these issues
and identify possible solutions.
Implementation
27. The committee will deliberate on
any issues arising from submissions, and recommend any amendments to the draft
group plan as a result.
28. A technical review on the draft
group plan will be received from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency
Management by 1 June. CDEM staff will consider that feedback before making a
recommendation to the CDEM Group committee on incorporating aspects of that
review in the final draft group plan.
29. Once the feedback is considered
by the CDEM Group committee, the draft group plan is delivered to the Minister
of Civil Defence on 4 July 2016 for a 20 working day review.
30. The final Civil
Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021 is scheduled to be
adopted by the committee at its 23 August 2016 meeting, subject to the outcomes
of the hearings process.
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
aView
|
Draft Civil Defence Emergency Managment Group Plan
2016-2021 Submissions
|
17
|
|
bView
|
Feedback from local boards and advisory panels on the
draft Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-2021
|
359
|
|
cView
|
Summary of demographic information
|
405
|
Signatories
|
Author
|
Kiri Maxwell – Senior Advisor
|
|
Authoriser
|
John Dragicevich - Director Civil Defence and Emergency
Management
|
