Agenda of Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

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:

Wednesday, 27 February 2019

10.00am

Room 1, Level 26
135 Albert Street
Auckland

Komiti Ārai Tūmatanui me Te Toko Raru Ohorere /

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr John Watson
Members	Cr Josephine Bartley
	Cr Ross Clow
	Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins
	IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare
	IMSB Member Dennis Kirkwood
	Cr Greg Sayers
	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Paul Young

Ex-officio	Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP
	Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

(Quorum 3 members)

Sonya Inger

Governance Advisor

21 February 2019

Contact Telephone: (09) 977 6050

Email: sonya.inger@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Terms of Reference

Responsibilities and powers

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee is a statutory committee required under S12(1) of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002 (CDEM Act) and is 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

· developing, approving, implementing and monitoring the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan

· developing, approving, implementing and monitoring other relevant strategies and policies relevant to the powers and functions of the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group as identified in the CDEM Act

· performing the statutory functions of a civil defence emergency management group

· representing Auckland in the development of national emergency management policy including approving relevant policy and legislative submissions to external bodies

· engaging with Local Boards and local board portfolio holders 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.

1 Apologies

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, 28 November 2018 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 Governance 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.”

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

27 February 2019

Report on Coordinating Executive Group meeting of 4 February 2019

File No.: CP2019/01178

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To report to the committee, the advice and recommendations from the Coordinating Executive Group meeting on 4 February 2019.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Coordinating Executive Group had its first meeting of 2019 on 4 February.

3. The Coordinating Executive Group received a number of reports on collaboration initiatives, as well as specific reports relating to the approval of documents. Agenda items from that meeting, not separately reported to this committee meeting include:

· Extraordinary business

· Proposed changes to CEG membership to reflect Auckland Emergency Management’s Controller-Director role split

· Proposal for joint exercising across agency partners

· Discussion on our approach to a joint Evaluation Action Plan

· Working to build community resilience together

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) note the contents of the report.

Horopaki

Context

4. Under section 20 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, the Coordinating Executive Group:

· provides advice to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

· implements, as appropriate, the decisions of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

· oversees the implementation, development, maintenance, monitoring and evaluation of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-21.

5. In performing these functions, the Coordinating Executive Group meets quarterly and also attends the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee meetings.

6. Coordinating Executive Group agenda items, not separately reported to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee are summarised.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Extraordinary business

7. There were three items of extraordinary business, one of which is separately reported in c) below:

a) Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) Proposal for Fly In Teams (AEM)

The Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management’s proposal for Fly-In-Teams was discussed. The proposal was supported in principle subject to query’s relating to implications for Auckland. These included implications for different agencies and established models used in defence and medical responses, the selection of fly-in-team members, thresholds for deployment and reporting lines. It was noted that legislation change might be required to operationalise fly-in-teams. It was agreed to prepare draft feedback and hold a joint workshop with the Ministry.

NB – a report on this item is included on the Committee’s agenda.

b) Shared CEG media (AEM)

Support for sharing media across Coordinating Executive Group agencies was discussed prompted by a media enquiry received Auckland Emergency Management. This idea was supported and it was noted that agenda items provided opportunities for more joint work across Coordinating Executive Group agencies. It was agreed to look at shared media in any joint work on readiness and exercises.

c) Building a Robust and Sustainable Volunteer Capability and Capacity for Emergency Management in New Zealand (AEM)

The Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management is seeking feedback on proposed national arrangements for response teams before the end of February 2019. Ownership and tasking of response teams, responsibility for training, and health and safety obligations were discussed. Auckland Emergency Management will circulate the document by 15 February 2019.

Proposed changes to CEG membership to reflect Auckland Emergency Management’s Controller-Director role split (AEM)

8. Previously one role, the functions of Group Controller and Director, Auckland Emergency Management were separated in June 2018.

9. The Coordinating Executive Group agreed to:

· the addition of the statutory role of Controller as a voting member of the Coordinating Executive Group to reflect the separation of Director and Controller roles

· to remove the role of Head of Strategy and Planning from membership to reflect the stronger role the Director has in delivering strategy under the separated roles, which helps maintain current membership numbers

· to amend the Coordinating Executive Group’s Terms of Reference to reflect these changes in the Group’s membership.

10. Updated Terms of Reference reflecting the membership change will be reported to the committee in May 2019 for endorsement.

Proposal for joint exercising across agency partners (AEM)

11. Auckland Emergency Management is developing a 2019 exercise calendar to test competencies across the group as outlined in the Auckland CDEM Group Plan (2016-2021). There is an opportunity for agency partners to lead and participate in joint exercises as part of this initiative.

12. A more aligned and collaborative approach to exercising across Coordinating Executive Group agencies was supported. The Coordinating Executive Group agreed to:

· support the establishment of an exercise working group

· recommend an appropriate candidate from their agency to provide representation on the exercise working group

· support agency representation at the Auckland Emergency Management’s Incident Management Team monthly meetings and recommend an appropriate candidate from their agency.

Discussion on our approach to a joint Evaluation Action Plan (AEM)

13. The Coordinating Executive Group agreed to develop a Joint Evaluation Action Plan and associated protocols. This is intended to inform collaboration across agencies through sharing improvements and lessons learnt after significant events. The Plan would be supported by tools to facilitate reporting and resourcing of any inter-agency recommendations subsequently identified through the plan. These tools would also enable updates to be provided to the Coordinating Executive Group and the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee as required.

14. The Coordinating Executive Group agreed to establish a working group to develop the protocols and a reporting template.

Working to build community resilience together (AEM and FENZ)

15. The Coordinating Executive Group previously agreed to developing a coordinated approach to the way that we work together.

16. The Coordinating Executive Group agreed to form a community resilience-building working group to explore actions that could be delivered in the areas of shared approaches to resilience building, shared resilience communications and inter agency delivery of actions. The Group also agreed to nominate representatives from each agency for the working.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

17. The matters outlined in this report support fulfilment of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group’s role and contribute to improving emergency management capability in Auckland. There are no direct implications for Auckland Council group.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

18. The matters outlined in this report support fulfilment of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group’s role and contribute to improving emergency management capability in Auckland. There are no direct local impacts or implications for local boards.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

19. The matters outlined in this report support fulfilment of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group’s role and contribute to improving emergency management capability in Auckland. There are no direct impacts on or implications for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

20. No financial implications are identified arising out of the matters outlined in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

21. The matters outlined in this report support fulfilment of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group’s role and contribute to improving emergency management capability in Auckland. There are no specific risks identified as arising out of the matters outlined in this report.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

22. The Coordinating Executive Group next meets on 6 May 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authorisers

Sarah Sinclair – Acting Director, Auckland Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

27 February 2019

Update of Group Controllers list pursuant to Section 26 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002

File No.: CP2019/01493

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the list of Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management group controllers as a regular update and to reflect recent staff changes.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Removal from, or addition to the list of authorised group controllers, group recovery managers and group welfare managers requires a resolution of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee. In August 2018 the committee agreed to receive a twice-yearly update to the list (CIV/2018/26).

3. It has since proven necessary to inform interim meetings of changes to reflect updates training or appointments, as well as staff changes.

4. A staff member, Craig Glover, former head of Strategy and Planning at Auckland Emergency Management, is no longer available to be an Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management group controller. His name has been removed from the list of alternate group controllers.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) approve the removal of Craig Clover, former Head of Strategy and Planning at Auckland Emergency Management, from the list of Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management group controllers.

Horopaki

Context

5. Under Section 26 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, each group must appoint, either by name or by reference to the holder of an office, “at least one suitably qualified and experienced person to be the person or persons who are to perform the functions and duties and exercise the powers of the group controller.”

6. Under Section 26(3) a group may, at any time remove from office or replace a group controller appointed under subsection (1) or (2).

7. The recording of the committee’s decision in the minutes of the meeting formalise appointments under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and fulfill the requirements of that Act.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. The role of group controller is an important one. In a declared emergency the individual performing has access to statutory powers subject to obligations and processes under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.

9. Auckland Emergency Management takes care to ensure a sufficient roster of qualified and authorised persons is available to undertake the role of group controller whenever an emergency occurs.

10. Reporting any additions and removals to the list of group controllers to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee so these can be formally resolved ensures clarity and compliance with Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.

11. Craig Glover, former Head of Strategy and Planning has resigned from Auckland Council and is no longer be available to perform the function of an Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management group controller.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. Group controllers are responsible for performing and exercising functions, duties and powers under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. While the assets, services and conduct of business by members of the council group may be impacted by an emergency, the appointment or removal of an individual as group controller has no impact.

13. Council group views were not sought on the decision to remove a group controller.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

14. Group controllers are responsible for performing and exercising functions, duties and powers under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. Civil defence emergencies can have local impacts and local boards are regularly consulted on the delivery of emergency services in their areas.

15. Local board views have not been sought on the decision to remove a group controller.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

16. There are no impacts on Māori arising from this report.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

17. There are no financial impacts arising from the report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

18. The Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group is required to appoint suitably qualified and experienced personnel to perform the functions and duties and exercise the powers of the group controller.

19. This report seeks to ensure the list of group controllers remains current, reflecting those qualified and duly authorised by the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee may perform this role.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

20. Any future deletions or additions to the list of group controllers, group recovery managers, and group welfare managers will be brought to the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee for resolution, as and when required.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jennifer Rose - Head of Recovery

Authoriser

Andrew Clark - General Manager Commercial and Finance

Sarah Sinclair - Acting Director, Auckland Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

27 February 2019

Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Submission on Fly In Team Concept

File No.: CP2019/01702

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To seek retrospective endorsement for the Auckland Group submission to Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management Consultation on the New Zealand Fly In Team Concept Paper, which was returned to meet Ministry deadlines, between meetings of the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Committee.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Ministry of Civil Defence issued an important consultation document in December 2018, requiring urgent response. This was the New Zealand Fly In Team (NZ-FIT) Concept Document of 12 December 2018.

3. Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group submitted a response to the New Zealand Fly In Team Concept on 5 February 2019, having received an extension of time to discuss the document at the Coordinating Executive Group. The Group submission endorses the concept of New Zealand Fly In teams, with a number of questions about applicability and implementation in Auckland. As an early concept document, it is understood that concept development and adaption is ongoing.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) retrospectively endorse Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group’s submission to New Zealand Fly In Team (NZ-FIT) Concept Document of 12 December 2018.

Horopaki

Context

4. This document proposes a Concept for the establishment of a suitably qualified and experienced pool of New Zealand Fly In Team members for the purpose of rapid deployments in emergency response and recovery situations. This follows government decisions announced on 30 August 2018 on emergency management system reform, in support of the recommendations of the Technical Advisory Group.

5. The Concept document has been clearly defined by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management as work in progress, and since the submission date further conversations with Ministry officials have identified that further development of the ideas into an operational level of detail is underway.

6. The document addresses the purpose and benefits to emergency management of having Fly In Teams. It suggests the scope, duties and responsibilities of the teams. It proposes how the teams might be selected, and the range of skills that might be sought and developed. Ideas of how the teams may be deployed are also articulated.

7. Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group submitted a response to the concept document on 5 February 2019, having secured an extension of time to allow the document and response ideas to be discussed at the Coordinating Executive Group. This extension of time did not allow time for the submission to be approved by the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Committee. This report seeks retrospective approval from the committee for the Group submission on the proposed Fly in team concept (Attachment A).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

8. The concept of developing additional capability and capacity in the emergency response sector is strongly supported. The time frames are challenging, and the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is acknowledged for its rapid development of the concept since announcement on 18 August 2018. The Ministry has made clear its intent to work with the 16 regional Civil Defence and Emergency Management groups to further develop the concept.

9. The submission from Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management group framed a number of questions, relating to implementation of Fly In Teams in the Auckland context. These related specifically to triggers, reporting lines, governance and Auckland specific legislation, involvement of local boards, Auckland scale and diversity, and involvement of staff who are involved part time rather than full time in emergency management. The submission endorsed and commended the intention to build capability in the sector and develop professional competences for emergency management staff and volunteers.

10. Officers from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management met with Auckland Emergency Management staff, Controllers and Lifelines Utility Coordinators to discuss the feedback, and to brief Auckland on ongoing changes to the concept based on more detailed considerations.

11. The Auckland Coordinating Executive Group has requested a workshop with the ministry once the proposal detail is further established, to work through some of the concepts in relation to a large, potentially declared, event in Auckland.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

12. The submission outlines that there are benefits to councils not identified in the document, and also raises potential impacts to Auckland Council when many of our incident response managers are not Auckland Emergency Management staff.

13. The formulation of the submission was discussed with the Coordinating Executive Group on 5 February 2019. As further detail is developed on the operational approach to fly in teams, this will be discussed across the planned incident management team at Council and the Coordinating Executive Group and escalated where appropriate. Further change is expected.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

14. The submission identifies the need for any Fly In Teams to understand local impacts, local areas and local board arrangements. This has been discussed further with the ministry, and further details will be provided to give context to Fly In Team arrangements, and how that will impact on local board arrangements.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

15. Discussions with Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management on selection and training of volunteers has stressed the importance of cultural awareness. Similarly, the submission identifies the importance of local relationships of trust with communities, and the importance of local understanding. Further details will be provided to give context to Fly In Team arrangements, and how that will impact on local board arrangements.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

16. Financial implications of training volunteers for Fly In Teams are discussed in the submission appended to this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

18. Further documentation on implementation and operational considerations around Fly In Teams is expected to be received from the ministry.

19. Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Coordinating Executive Group has requested a workshop with the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. Further details are also requested on existing qualifications, and on capabilities and constraints around selection and training of volunteers.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland CDEM Group Group Submission on NZ-FIT	23

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authorisers

Sarah Sinclair - Acting Director, Auckland Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

27 February 2019

Building a robust and sustainable volunteer capability and capacity for emergency management in New Zealand

File No.: CP2019/01749

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Auckland Coordinating Executive Group’s submission to the New Zealand Response Team Steering Group’s options paper for ‘Building a robust and sustainable volunteer capacity for emergency management in New Zealand.’

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. Response teams have been part of the Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) structure in New Zealand for over 30 years. Their role in response increased following the strengthening of responsibilities at the local government level under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.

3. Recent changes to how volunteers in the sector are managed has led to confusion about which tasks Response Teams can undertake, who will task them, and associated health and safety management implications. A New Zealand Response Team Steering Group has been established to clarify Response Team arrangements and improve local, regional and national relationships with the intent of ongoing utilisation of Response Teams in emergency events. This Steering Group was tasked with, among other things, considering governance options for Response Teams.

4. The Steering Group has asked for feedback on an options paper ‘Building a robust and sustainable volunteer capacity for emergency management in New Zealand’ which outlines governance arrangements for Response Teams and what should be achieved through any arrangements. It presents a recommended option before describing the process for gaining a mandate to progress with the recommended option and next steps.

5. Auckland’s submission was coordinated by Auckland Emergency Management based on expert advice from the team, feedback from the Coordinating Executive Group, and Auckland Council’s Senior Health and Safety Advisor, Infrastructure and Environmental Services. Comment on the draft response was also sought from the two Response Teams in Auckland.

6. Auckland’s submission supports the utilisation of Response Teams across New Zealand, and the benefits of establishing national governance arrangements, however it does not support the Steering Group’s recommended option.

7. The proposed governance arrangements separate ownership and governance of the Response Teams, leaving health and safety accountability with the owners, which Auckland considers a fundamental part of governance. In addition, the proposed option lacks clarity at as to who would task response teams and the mechanism for how Response Teams would be tasked. It is suggested that this needs to be more clearly defined, prior to establishing a governance structure.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) approve the Auckland Coordinating Executive Group submission to the New Zealand Response Team Steering Group’s options paper for ‘Building a robust and sustainable volunteer capacity for emergency management in New Zealand.’

Horopaki

Context

8. Response Teams have been part of the Civil Defence Emergency Management structure in New Zealand for over 30 years. Their role in response increased following the strengthening of responsibilities at the local government level under the Civil Defence and Emergency Act 2002.

9. Response teams consist of community volunteers supported by, and accountable to, a specific local authority or other parent organisation. They can provide specific capability and capacity to support emergency services or the civil defence and emergency management sector during a local emergency.

10. Recent changes to how volunteers in the sector are managed has led to confusion about which tasks Response Teams can undertake, who will task them, and associated health and safety implications. The Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management held two workshops in April and July 2018, to explore options for building a robust, organised and sustainable volunteer capability and capacity for emergency management.

11. An action resulting from the July 2018 workshop was the establishment of a New Zealand Response Team Steering Group, to explore options for governance of Response Teams in New Zealand. This was intended to be followed by a working group, if necessary, to establish roles, responsibilities and tasking arrangements.

12. On 12 December 2018 the Steering Group asked for feedback from Coordinating Executive Groups, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Managers, and Response Team Owners on ‘Building a robust and sustainable volunteer capacity for emergency management in New Zealand’ options paper (Attachment A).

13. The options paper outlines governance arrangements for Response Teams and what should be achieved through any arrangements. It presents a recommended option before describing the process for gaining a mandate to progress with the recommended option and next steps.

14. The recommended option is to leave ownership of teams where it is currently, but to split the governance arrangements for Response Teams into two parts: key agency governance and team governance. This option recommends the establishment of:

i) Key agency governance – A national group/board of stakeholders that consists of senior officials/representatives from key tasking agencies, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Groups and Response Team owners.

ii) Team governance – A non-government charitable organisation that represents response teams and provides governance and support when needed. Any team, regardless of their ownership model, could be a member of the organisation, with team owners holding voting rights. The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (the Ministry) would also be a member of the organisation. Members of the organisation will decide on who will represent them in the national group/board of stakeholders. Ownership of teams will remain as is (in other words, teams could be owned by local authorities, businesses, trusts etc) with health and safety responsibilities and liabilities remaining with the owner. The organisation could have the ability to support teams when necessary, by either advocating or supporting them or, if necessary, owning them.

iii) A Ministry-based secretariat to support the national group/board of stakeholders and the non-government charitable organisation. The secretariat would also develop, implement and administer a national accreditation framework and develop national policy.

15. The paper also provides a background and the current state of Response Teams, before describing all the governance arrangements options that were explored. Feedback on the options paper was initially requested by 15 February 2019, however the Ministry has extended the deadline until 5:00pm, 1 March 2019.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

16. The Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017, which amalgamated the New Zealand Fire Service (urban fire services) and the National Rural Fire Authority (rural fire services) into one organisation impacted the ownership and management of Response Teams. Prior to the unification of urban and rural fire services in New Zealand, rural fire was the responsibility of local authorities under the Forrest and Rural Fires Act 1977.

17. In Auckland like many councils, one of the responsibilities of council Rural Fire teams was the governance and management of both the Volunteer Rural Fire Forces, and local Response Teams. However, since the amalgamation of urban and rural fire services into Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the role and governance of Response Teams across New Zealand including Auckland were not transitioned into the unified fire organisation. This led to a lack of clarity whether these teams of highly trained individuals would be tasked by any of the first response agencies, which raised questions about their ongoing viability.

18. As Auckland Council is not a first response agency the organisation does not have first responder safety protocols in place, including ongoing training and development. However, in parallel with the government response, the Auckland Coordinating Executive Group agreed to explore tasking and capability using Auckland Council health and safety systems.

19. The options paper was sent to Coordinating Executive Group members on 8 January 2019 and was discussed briefly at a Response Team workshop held with Coordinating Executive Group members on 21 January 2019.

20. On 4 February 2019 the Coordinating Executive Group met, and the governance of Response Teams was discussed again under Extraordinary Business.

21. Auckland Emergency Management circulated a draft submission based on expert advice from within the team, as well as feedback received from Coordinating Executive Group members. The draft submission was distributed to Coordinating Executive Group members, as well as Auckland Council’s Senior Health and Safety Advisor, Infrastructure and Environmental Services, for any further feedback.

22. Although Auckland’s submission (Attachment B) supports the utilisation of Response Teams across New Zealand, and the benefits of establishing national governance arrangements, it does not support the Steering Group’s recommended option to establish two distinct parts of governance arrangements: key agency governance and team governance.

23. The proposed governance arrangements separate ownership and governance of the Response Teams, leaving health and safety accountability with the owners, which Auckland considers a fundamental part of governance. In addition, the proposed option lacks clarity at the local level as to who would task response teams and the mechanism for how Response Teams would be tasked. It is suggested that this needs to be discussed further and more clearly defined, prior to establishing a governance structure.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

24. The formulation of Auckland’s submission was coordinated by Auckland Emergency Management based on feedback from the Coordinating Executive Group, as well as expert advice from within the team. Both Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are members of the Coordinating Executive Group.

25. Of note, the options paper refers to all Response Teams. Auckland Transport has a volunteer Maritime Response Team and a Harbourmaster Response Team, and it is suggested that more clarity is needed on how other Response Teams would be managed under the recommended governance option.

26. All feedback received from members of the group has been included in the submission.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

27. No specific local views have been considered in the drafting of this report, and the recommendations contained in this report have no specific local impacts.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

28. The option paper outlining the proposed governance of Response Teams in New Zealand does not have any specific implications for Māori outcomes in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

29. There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

30. Our submissions seeks to balance the risk of not being able to utilise response teams against the risk of unclear responsibilities for health and safety, volunteer capability and tasking.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

31. To progress and develop the recommended option to a more detailed level, the Steering Group need:

i) Two thirds of Response Team Owners (who respond) to support the recommended option.

ii) Key agencies to support the recommended option.

32. The options paper states that if there is a mandate to progress the recommended option (that is, the above threshold is met) the Steering Group will develop the recommended option in more detail, which includes seeking advice on the structure of the recommended option. A more detailed final option will then be circulated.

33. If the threshold to progress is not met, the Steering Group will review the responses and the reasons for a lack of support, and then discuss a way forward.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	New Zealand Response Team Steering Group - Options for establishing governance arrangements	41
b ⇩	Auckland Coordinating Executive Group Submission - Governance of Response Teams	57

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Kiri Maxwell - Principal Advsr Strategy & Partnerships
Authoriser	Sarah Sinclair – Acting Director, Auckland Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

27 February 2019

Pathways to Preparedness: A Planning Framework for Recovery - Approval for Consultation

File No.: CP2019/00880

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the draft Pathways to Preparedness: A Planning Framework for Recovery for targeted consultation and engagement.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee has received a series of updates on the development of the draft Pathways to Preparedness: A Planning Framework for Recovery (Attachment A), under the previous working title: the Resilient Recovery Strategy. The change of name more accurately reflects the purpose and contents of the document.

3. The draft framework satisfies requirements to strategically plan for recovery. It will build momentum on preparations for recovery through implementing actions to enable effective recovery, guided by what is important to communities in Auckland.

4. The draft framework identified actions to build capacity and capacity and remove barriers to effective recovery. Working with our partners, this work includes wider public engagement on recovery, what happens and how people and communities can better prepare themselves.

5. It is proposed that engagement and consultation on the draft framework focus most heavily on organisations and agencies actively engaged in delivering a recovery, supported by soft engagement with the wider public. Engaging Māori communities is a priority and will be structured around Auckland’s marae.

6. Following engagement and consultation from March through June, the final draft framework will be reported to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee for adoption in August 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) approve the draft Pathways to Preparedness: A Planning Framework for Recovery for consultation and targeted engagement with identified groups and organisations.

b) note that the committee will receive the final draft Pathways to Preparedness: A Planning Framework for Recovery for approval at its meeting in August 2019.

Horopaki

Context

7. The draft Pathways to Preparedness: A Planning Framework for Recovery was developed under the working title of the Resilient Recovery Strategy. The new title more accurately reflects its purpose and content.

8. Under the former title, work on the draft framework was reported to the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee in November 2017 (CP2017/24590), February 2018 (CP2018/01314) and August 2018 (CP2018/15741).

9. The draft framework meets the requirements of the 2016 amendments to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 and mandatory guidelines to strategically plan for recovery.

10. The draft framework builds momentum on our preparations for recovery, through identified actions directed at what is crucial for effective recovery, guided by what is important to communities in Auckland.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Draft Framework

11. The draft framework follows the process set out in the Ministry for Civil Defence Emergency Management’s Guidelines: Strategic Planning for Recovery (DGL 20/17), as follows:

Community values and priorities

12. An initial set of community values and priorities was identified through engagement with Auckland Council’s local boards and demographic advisory panels. Reported feedback on consultation on the Auckland Plan 2050 was also considered.

13. Community values and priorities guide pre-event recovery planning and preparation to ensure their focus on what is relevant and important to communities. They inform the way we will work in a recovery and the work we would do.

Community values

Identity, Diversity and Tolerance

Independence, Resilience and Self Reliance

Community, Connection and Culture, Heritage and Amenity

Local Knowledge, Leadership Partnership and Voice

Community Priorities

Physical and Social Connections, Communication

Enabling Local Input, Lifelines and Key Infrastructure, Economic Recovery

Safety, Health and Personal Wellbeing (including our pets)

Security and Personal Property

Vision for recovery preparedness

14. Consistent with the Directors’ Guidelines for Strategic Planning for Recovery, the draft framework sets a vision to ensure:

‘Auckland’s people, communities, businesses and infrastructure are well-placed to recover from a disaster’

Consequences and opportunities of Auckland’s hazards and risks

15. The value of anticipating what might be required to recover from an emergency event arising from Auckland’s hazards and risks is outlined in the document. Its formulation incorporates the impacts of hazards and risks, their interaction with the circumstances of time and place, themselves informed by a community’s values and priorities. This forms a basis for intentional pre-event recovery planning and preparation. New Zealand and international experience shows undertaking this work has advantages over leaving recovery to chance or orchestrating a recovery without pre-planning.

16. Work to better understand Auckland’s hazards and risks, their impacts and consequences is part of Auckland Emergency Management’s ongoing work programme.

Building capacity and capability; and addressing barriers to recovery

17. This element of the draft framework comprises two elements: a partnership approach and five areas of focus to support building capacity and capability. These are described below:

18. Partnership approach - The partnership approach provides a framework for how we will work in recovery to respond to the initial set of community values and priorities. This approach seeks a balance between:

· organic structures, supportive of self-initiated and community action, and

· highly structured, institutional structures that enable coordination and recovery operations at scale.

The partnership approach is informed by our engagement with local boards and initial community values and priorities. It is also consistent with the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee focus on resilience across the Group Plan’s 5 R’s – reduction, readiness, response, recovery and resilience.

19. Five Areas of Focus - Five areas of focus ensure pre-event recovery preparations are directed towards actions that are crucial to recovery and/or address challenges to effective recovery in Auckland. The five focus areas emerged through the development of the draft strategy and parallel work streams in recovery. They seek to ensure:

· capacity and capability is available

· collaboration is supported

· recovery is communicated

· recovery is understood

· monitoring and evaluation is undertaken.

Actions to build momentum

20. A set of short to medium term actions are identified. Initially focused on Auckland Emergency Management, the implementation of these actions will first involve the wider Auckland Council group, then expand outwards to include a wider group of partners before reaching out into the community.

21. Members of the Coordinating Executive Group will be involved to ensure inter-agency operability is maintained, operational needs are assured and to affirm shared understanding.

22. The actions focus on:

· Auckland’s diversity

· Building an understanding of recovery in our communities

· Collaboration planning

· Economy/Local economy

· Funding and resources

· Managing expectations

· Māori communities

· Monitoring and evaluation

· Pre-existing issues

· Psycho-social recovery

· Establishing task groups for recovery environments

23. The existing recovery work programme will be refreshed and updated as a prioritised work programme enabling progress to be made on achieving the draft framework’s vision.

24. The draft framework has been developed with significant engagement with local boards and council’s demographic advisory panels. It has also benefited from an internal workshop process and support from the Ministry for Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee.

Consultation and Engagement

25. Consultation and engagement on the draft framework will occur from the beginning of March 2019 to the end of June 2019. The final draft framework will be reported to the Coordinating Executive Group in early August, before being reported to the Committee for adoption.

26. The draft framework is more of a technical nature setting out actions to be undertaken to better prepare for a recovery from an event. As described above, implementation will mostly involve business units within the Auckland Council group, our partners and key stakeholders, before reaching out into the community.

27. Consultation and engagement on the draft framework will be targeted to groups and organisations which are anticipated to play an active role in a recovery, supported by soft engagement with the wider public. The basis for this consultation strategy is:

· targeting those anticipated to be more closely involved in executing a recovery. This enables socialisation of the ideas and concepts, helps build relationships, provides the opportunity to make improvements and supports buy-in for the work they will become involved in.

· targeted engagement on the draft framework provides an opportunity to engage with individuals, groups and organisations who may be recruited to task groups for recovery.

· the draft framework identifies specific actions to ensure ‘Recovery is understood’ and ‘Recovery is communicated’ well in the implementation of recovery. It proposes to actively engage the community to supporting their understanding of what recovery is, how it works, how they can help and what they can do to better prepare themselves.

28. Engagement will involve a mixture of email contact, one-on-one meetings and facilitated group workshops. Auckland Council local boards, demographic panels, business units within Auckland Council group, community groups and organisations active in the emergency management sector, NGO’s and specialist organisations will be involved.

29. It is important to note that engaging Auckland’s Māori communities will be a priority, focusing on marae as a centre of Māori communities. This approach was recommended by the Independent Māori Statutory Board and Auckland Emergency Management hui held in November 2018.

30. Attachment B sets out the groups and organisations to be engaged under this proposal.

31. This targeted engagement will be supported by engaging with the senior, Rainbow, disability, cultural and linguistically diverse, Pacific and faith-based communities. Contact will be made through established networks seeking feedback and Auckland Emergency Management will respond to requests for engagement as appropriate.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

32. Limited engagement on the draft framework has been undertaken to date across the Auckland Council group. A degree of pre-work was required to support broader discussion. This pre-work was undertaken in developing the draft framework and it is now appropriate to commence discussion. This context forms a part of our preference for targeted consultation and engagement. Attachment B provides further information on business units within the Auckland Council group to be engaged.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

33. Emergency events occur in a location or locations affecting surrounding places and communities. The affected area may be confined to a part of a local board’s area or may involve multiple local boards. Civil defence emergency management is of general interest local boards, and particular interest following an emergency event.

34. While decision making under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 is expressly the function of Auckland Council’s governing body, local boards are a key partner in emergency management in Auckland. Local boards maintain relationships with community organisations and special interest groups in their area and are responsible for identifying community preferences in relation to strategies, policies, plans and bylaws. Local boards play an important role in recovery following a significant event.

35. Local boards have been engaged throughout the development of the draft framework. workshops, presentations to local board cluster meetings, and the circulation of reports and memos have continued a dialogue about recovery. Local board engagement on the draft framework is an opportunity to continue this conversation.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

36. An emergency event may adversely impact on land, water, sites of significance, waahi tapu flora or fauna affecting mana whenua and Māori wellbeing in general. The recovery from such an event would similarly affect mana whenua and Māori wellbeing.

37. A significant development arising out of the recovery from the Christchurch earthquakes has been the involvement of local iwi at all levels, from delivering services and activities on marae to governance and decision-making through the structures established for the recovery.

38. Auckland’s mana whenua and mataawaka will be engaged and consulted on the draft framework through marae. The engagement is also an opportunity to introduce Auckland Emergency Management recovery activities and lead into the draft framework’s identified actions with Māori communities. Based on wider engagement, these actions are to develop a shared understanding of recovery, identify opportunities to collaborate and cultivate leadership, participation and outcomes for Māori.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

39. There are no financial implications arising from this report. Resources have been provided for in the current budget and no financial risks have been identified.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

40. The draft framework is to build capability and capacity and address barriers currently existing to effective recovery. The draft framework seeks to mitigate the risk of being under prepared to effectively recover from an event.

41. The timing of an event, such as a storm, is beyond control. The main risk would be for such an event to occur before the draft framework’s actions have been able to be implemented. In mitigation, recovery processes under Standard Operating Procedures, have been refined and developed in parallel to work on the draft framework. Subsequent risk is mitigated progressively as progress is made on implementing the draft framework’s actions.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

42. Following consultation and engagement over the period of March-June 2019, the final draft framework will be reported Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee for adoption on 28 August 2019.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Pathways to Preparedness: A Planning Framework for Recovery	71
b ⇩	Engagement and Consultation: Auckland Council and Partners	73

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Wayne Brown - Principal Recovery Advisor

Authorisers

Jennifer Rose - Head of Recovery

Sarah Sinclair – Acting Director, Auckland Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

27 February 2019

Welfare Coordination in Emergencies: Auckland Emergency Management Group Welfare Plan

File No.: CP2019/01251

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To approve the Auckland Welfare Plan for adoption.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Welfare Coordination Group has co-designed a revised plan for the coordination and delivery of emergency welfare services in Auckland.

3. The revised plan defines the welfare functions in an emergency, the agencies involved, and sets a framework for detailed plans to be developed at sub function level.

4. A discussion document about the Auckland Welfare Plan was presented and endorsed by the Coordinating Executive Group and committee in August 2018. Agreement for further consultation across stakeholders and partners was granted at this meeting.

5. Following wider consultation, the draft Auckland Welfare Plan has been finalised and was brought back to the Coordinating Executive Group on 4^th February 2019 for endorsement prior to seeking the approval of the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee.

6. This plan will be supported through the development of a tool-kit of resources, standard operating procedures and community focused resources. These combined plans and tools define and guide the way that Auckland Emergency Management, Group Welfare function and the nine sub-functions of welfare will coordinate services in an emergency.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) approve the Auckland Welfare Plan (Attachment A to the agenda report).

Horopaki

Context

7. The Auckland Welfare Coordination Group is made up of partners from emergency services, social and health services and non-government organisations. This group is required under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002) to develop a Group Welfare Plan for Auckland that shows how the group will provide for the relief of distress, including emergency food, clothing and shelter.

8. The Auckland Welfare Coordination Group has worked together to co-design this new collaborative Auckland Welfare Plan for the coordination and delivery of emergency welfare services for Auckland.

9. The objective of the Auckland Welfare Plan is to provide a clear and concise strategic document that can be used to inform and educate anyone on what the group does and why we do it.

Developing a new plan for welfare coordination

10. Traditionally welfare plans are internally focused documents that are not able to be shared widely due to the operational nature of the information contained within them.

11. The Auckland Welfare Coordination Group and the Coordinating Executive Group endorsed a new approach to the development of planning for welfare that would enable community and stakeholders without formal roles within a response, to have a clear understanding of how welfare would be delivered.

12. It was agreed by the Auckland Welfare Coordination Group and the Coordinating Executive Group that the new look welfare planning would deliver on the following requirements:

· Provide any audience with transparency about what emergency welfare is, what services are provided during and after an emergency and recommend what Aucklanders can do to build their own resilience.

· Use strong visual elements, to ensure maximum accessibility, enabling it to be used as a simple and concise public document.

· That the plan could be used by anyone who has a role or interest in how welfare agencies are coordinated to respond to the welfare needs of the people of Auckland.

13. A ‘Welfare coordination in emergencies’ discussion document was presented to the Auckland Civil Defence and Emergency Management Committee and the Coordinating Executive Group in August 2018 outlining the responsibilities, principles, challenges and the interdependencies across agencies. The committee and the executive group provided feedback on this document in August 2018 and endorsement was given for wider consultation to occur to develop the plan.

14. Consultation on the plan was facilitated through discussions with various stakeholders within the welfare coordination group, and with agencies and stakeholders who do not hold a traditional role within the coordination of emergencies but take an active interest in welfare, such as Neighbourhood Support, Age Concern, disability and diversity focused panels and organisations. This plan was also workshopped with various local boards and advisory panels for their feedback.

15. The stakeholders that are not part of a traditional emergency welfare response welcomed the new approach to talking about welfare in emergencies. They found the new look document to be educational in understanding the way welfare works and the work that we do during an emergency response. This has resulted in organisations such as Neighbourhood Support working with the group to redefine their practice in a response, to further support our approach in developing a shared understanding of how we can leverage our combined efforts for the betterment of individuals and communities.

16. The plan was also shared with various civil defence emergency management groups across New Zealand. We are now working with other groups to give them access to this plan and share our practice and process for developing plans such as these, across their communities and networks.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

17. The welfare plan (Attachment A) sets the strategic context of emergency welfare coordination and delivery in Auckland. It shows the nine key areas of work that are delivered as part of a welfare response, these areas of work make up the nine sub-functions of welfare outlined below.

18. The nine sub functions of welfare coordination are:

a) Combined sub functions 1 and 2: Registration and Needs Assessment: The collation of affected people’s details and identification of immediate needs.

b) Sub function 3: Inquiry: A cross-agency process of reconnecting people who are out of contact with family or significant others (beyond usual means of contact).

c) Sub function 4: Care and Protection of Children and Young People: Providing statutory care and protection services to children and young people separated from their parent, legal guardian, or usual caregiver during an emergency.

d) Sub function 5: Psycho-social Support: Providing psychological and social support interventions that support recovery.

e) Sub function 6: Household Goods and Services: Providing essential goods and services when access to these has been disrupted.

f) Sub function 7: Shelter and Accommodation: Providing shelter and accommodation for people who have to leave their homes as a result of an emergency.

g) Sub function 8: Financial Assistance: Providing essential immediate or longer fixed term financial assistance (including tax relief and ACC payments) from the government and non-government agencies and organisations.

h) Sub function 9: Animal Welfare: Providing assistance to animals affected by an emergency, including the temporary shelter and care of companion animals and their reunification with owners.

19. Each Auckland Welfare Coordination Group lead agency is currently working with their supporting agencies to develop nine welfare sub function plans. These plans detail the operational agreements and requirements for delivery of welfare service provision within specific areas of welfare provision and how agencies will work together. The sub function plans cover the key areas of work that the welfare function delivers within an emergency.

How this plan fits

20. The Welfare in Emergencies plan is used in conjunction with a supporting Welfare Toolkit. The Welfare Toolkit contains the standard operating procedures (such as activation, triggers and thresholds for welfare response), role descriptions and other operational policy and procedures developed for the welfare agencies.

21. This plan was brought back to the Coordinating Executive Group for endorsement prior to seeking the approval of the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee in February 2019.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

22. The proposed initiatives contained in this report have no identified impacts on other parts of the council group. The views of council-controlled organisations were not required for the preparation of this report’s advice.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

23. The recommendations in this report will enable local boards to gain a greater understanding of the welfare in emergencies process.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

24. The recommendations made in this report have no identified Māori impacts.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

25. There are no identified financial implications arising out of recommendations made in this report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

26. Risk management is a central focus of emergency management. The risk of not proceeding with the recommendations outlined in this report is that Auckland Emergency Management and partner agencies in the Auckland Welfare Coordination Group will not be fulfilling the requirements under the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

27. The review and future development of the Welfare Toolkit is a key deliverable in the Auckland Welfare Coordination Group 2019 work programme. The work programme is being developed and will be reported back to the Coordinating Executive Group and Committee in May 2019 to agree subsequent progress reporting.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Welfare Plan	81

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Catherine Cooper - Head of Resilience and Welfare
Authoriser	Sarah Sinclair – Acting Director, Auckland Emergency Management

Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee

27 February 2019

Forward Work Programme

File No.: CP2019/01224

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1. To update the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee on the forward work programme, including increased opportunities for collaboration and joint work across Coordinated Executive Group agencies.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2. The forward work programme outlines work to implement the actions from the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan’s ‘Framework for Action’.

3. Reporting on the forward work programme is a standing item on the agendas of the Coordinating Executive Group and Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee meetings to support their oversight. Progress on the forward work programme is reported under headings in the Update on the Coordinating Executive Group meeting on 4 February 2019 report and in two separate reports included on the agenda.

4. In November 2018 the Committee requested that the forward work programme by updated to incorporate recommendations from independent reports on the April Storm (CIV/2018/36) and the Sims Pacific Fire (CIV/2018/37). Discussion also referred to the Technical Advisory Group review of the sector and the Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management‘s Business Plan 2018-22.

5. The forward work programme increasingly involves collaboration across the agencies represented on the Coordinating Executive Group. The Group has agreed to schedule quarterly workshops, to fall between quarterly meetings to reflect the collaborative nature of the Group’s ongoing forward work programme.

6. The Group has agreed that the Forward Work Programme should be developed between the agencies to ensure the programme reflects the Group’s commitments and priorities.

7. The Coordinating Executive Group’s Terms of Reference will be amended to reflect agreement to hold quarterly workshops and this will be reported to the Committee for endorsement at its meeting in May 2019.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Committee:

a) endorse revisions to the form of Forward Work Programme to:

i) reflect interagency priorities for work developed to implement the intent of the Group Plan

ii) respond to priorities arising since the publication of the Group Plan, before the next scheduled update,

Horopaki

Context

8. One of the Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee functions is to “develop, approve, implement and monitor a civil defence emergency management group plan and regularly review the plan” under section 17 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.

9. One of the Coordinating Executive Group’s functions is to “overseeing the implementation, development, maintenance, monitoring and evaluation of the civil defence emergency management group” under section 20 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002.

10. The Auckland Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Plan 2016-21 includes a ‘Framework for Action’ summarising actions across the 5 ‘R’s that Auckland must progress to become a resilient region.

11. The forward work programme is a standing agenda item for Coordinating Executive Group and Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee meetings. The forward work programme includes actions for the 2018/2019 financial year as well as ongoing strategic initiatives from past actions.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

Forward Work Programme

12. Progress on the forward work programme is outlined in two reports included on the agenda for the Civil Defence Emergency Management Committee:

i) Pathways to Progress: A Planning Framework for Recovery

ii) Welfare Coordination in Emergencies: Auckland Emergency Management Group Welfare Plan.

13. Progress on the forward work programme is also outlined on three items in the Update on the Coordinating Executive Group Meeting on 4 February 2019 report, included on the Committee’s agenda:

i) Joint exercising across agency partners

ii) Joint Evaluation Action Plan

iii) Working to build community resilience together.

14. These items reflect that much of the forward work programme requires our coordinating agencies to working with Auckland Emergency Management on combined responsiveness. Much of the discussion at the Coordinating Executive Group related to items which had involved collaboration across the agencies or new opportunities for further collaboration.

15. Recent developments within the wider emergency management sector and the prospect of ongoing change will increase the need for cross agency collaboration. Examples of recent developments include the Technical Advisory Group review, the forthcoming National Disaster Resilience Strategy, and the next review of our Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee Group Plan.

16. The Coordinating Executive Group also agreed to schedule quarterly workshops in addition to the Group’s quarterly meetings to workshop collaborative work. These workshops will be added to the formal forward work programme of the Group.

17. This report recommends that the forward work programme is developed to reflect work across the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group. This will include regular workshops.

Terms of Reference – Coordinating Executive Group

18. The Coordinating Executive Groups Terms of Reference will be amended to provide for quarterly workshops and associated processes and reported to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Committee in May 2019 for endorsement.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

19. The matters outlined in this report support fulfilment of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee’s role. There are no council group impacts arising from this report. Any impacts relating to items on the work programme are addressed when separately reported on.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

20. There are no local impacts arising from this report. Any local impacts and/or local board views relating to items on the work programme are addressed when separately reported on.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

21. There are no impacts on Auckland’s Māori arising from this report. Any impacts for Auckland’s Māori relating to items on the work programme are addressed when separately reported on.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

22. There are no financial implications arising from this report. Any financial implications relating to items on the work programme are addressed when separately reported on.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

23. There are no risks arising from this report to be mitigated. Any risks and their mitigation relating to items on the work programme are addressed when separately reported on.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

24. The Forward Work Programme is a live document that will be continuously updated based on the needs of the wider Auckland region and the suggestions of the Coordinating Executive Group and Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Committee.

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Forward Work Programme	125

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author	Jennifer Rose - Head of Recovery
Authoriser	Sarah Sinclair – Acting Director, Auckland Emergency Management