AGENDA
Ordinary meeting of the
Nelson Tasman Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Tuesday 11 April 2017
Commencing at the conclusion of Joint Shareholders Committee
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Her Worship the Mayor of Nelson R Reese, His Worship the Mayor of Tasman R Kempthorne (Chairperson), Deputy Mayor of Nelson Councillor P Matheson, and Deputy Mayor of Tasman Councillor T King
Nelson Tasman Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
11 April 2017
Nil
2.1 Updates to the Interests Register
2.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
3. Report of the Emergency Management Office 4 - 26
Document number R7486
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Receives the Report of the Emergency Management Office (R7486) and its attachments (A1685134, A1682798 and A1701746); and
Agrees that $55,000 allocated to the replacement of the NZ-RT2 truck be carried over from financial year 2016/17 to financial year 2017/18.
4. Implications of Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 27 - 31
Document number R7275
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Receives the report Implications of Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 (R7275); and
Approves the appointment of Richard Kirby as Nelson Tasman Group Recovery Manager; and
Approves the following as Alternate Group Recovery Managers: Clare Barton, Adrian Humphries, and Peter Anderson; and
Agrees that the following local authority elected representatives from Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council are authorised, in the following order of precedence, to give notice of a local transition period under s.25 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (as amended):
- Mayor of the district most affected by an emergency
- Mayor of the other district
- Deputy Mayor of the district most affected by an emergency
- Deputy Mayor of the other district
- Any elected local authority representative of Nelson City Council or Tasman District Council
5. Forum with Minister of CDEM - Feedback from Mayors
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES
6. Civil Defence Emergency Management Group - Coordinating Executive Group Minutes - 15 February 2017 32 - 35
Document number M2330
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Receives the unconfirmed minutes of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group – Coordinating Executive Group, held on 15 February 2017.
Public Excluded Business
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Excludes the public from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:
|
Item |
General subject of each matter to be considered |
Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter |
Particular interests protected (where applicable) |
|
1 |
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group - Coordinating Executive Group Public Excluded Minutes - 15 February 2017
|
Section 48(1)(a) The public conduct of this matter would be likely to result in disclosure of information for which good reason exists under section 7 |
The withholding of the information is necessary: · Section 7(2)(a) To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of a deceased person |
8. Re-admittance of the public
Recommendation
That the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group
Re-admits the public to the meeting.
|
|
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group 11 April 2017 |
REPORT R7486
Report of the Emergency Management Office
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To receive an update from the Emergency Management (EM) Office including lessons from recent emergency events, the upcoming Group Plan review, and the proposed business plan and 2017/18 budget of the EM Office.
2. Recommendation
3. Discussion
3.1 This report contains a general update on the work programme of the Emergency Management (EM) Office. I have concentrated on key issues requiring action, given the shorter time available for this meeting of the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG). If there are other items of the EM Office work programme that CEG members wish to discuss, I am happy to provide any detail.
Kaikoura/Marlborough Earthquakes
3.2 The principal development since the CEG last met has been the Kaikoura-Marlborough earthquake events and associated tsunami alert on 14 November 2016. The earthquake was felt strongly in the Nelson Tasman region but fortunately did little damage. Our response focused on providing assistance to Marlborough and Kaikoura, including the deployment of NZ-RT2 to the Marlborough region for a number of days.
3.3 Subsequent advice from the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM), based on GNS input, has emphasised the ongoing risk of significant after-shock activity. We also had a high level of public anxiety and inquiry after the Kaikoura event in November and December. As a result staff devoted considerable resources in this period to national and local coordination: a number of national teleconferences were held and we convened an urgent meeting of the Readiness and Response Committee to undertake contingency planning. A series of community meetings was held in Nelson, Richmond, Motueka and Takaka.
Kaikoura Event: Key Lessons
3.4 Issues around the national tsunami alerting system were highlighted by the Kaikoura event and were raised by a number of Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Groups in the national teleconferences. The limitations of the current warning system were certainly evident for the Nelson Tasman region on 14 November, when we were left with serious concerns over the warning advice received. If the tsunami event had required evacuations in our region, we would have been very exposed. The introduction of a timely national public alerting system (such as txt alerting) is essential in order to address the near-source tsunami risk. In light of the difficulties that we faced locally in this tsunami event, I look forward to the review announced by central government.
3.5 Locally, this event also pointed up the need for a regional (Nelson Tasman) mass evacuation plan. This was also a lesson that came out of the national tsunami exercise held in August/September 2016. Such plans have been prepared by Police in many other parts of New Zealand. I respectfully ask that NZ Police prepare a regional mass evacuation plan for our area, and a recommendation to this effect is suggested above. The CDEM Group staff stand ready to assist.
CDEM Group Plan Review
3.6 The Nelson Tasman CDEM Group Plan is a legislated requirement of the CDEM Act 2002 and needs to be updated every five years. The current Plan, dated 2012, has been scheduled for review in 2017 and will require a public consultation. Nelson City Council has agreed to lead the plan writing and a Tasman District Council staff member will assist with the review of the hazards information. A budget of $20,000 is available to support the project. A timeline for the project is attached (Annex 1) for the CEG’s approval.
Business Plan of the Emergency Management Office 2017/18
3.7 Attached as Annex 2 is a revised business plan for the EM Office covering key outputs for the period September 2016-June 2018. The timing of the plan aligns with the Group Plan review above, and also aligns to the revised Annual Plan budget below. This business plan also demonstrates how the EM Office is following up the recommendations of the MCDEM Monitoring and Evaluation Review conducted in 2015. This is intended to meet MCDEM’s expectation of a ‘corrective action plan’ flowing from the 2015 Review.
3.8 It is noted that the EM Office has a reduced staffing resource since the change to my own role (ie, I am now 30% CDEM and 70% on other NCC work). This has reduced capacity for some project work in the current financial year. In the forward work programme, it is noted that there is no provision for Lifelines or Recovery planning.
3.9 It is recommended that the CEG approve the Business Plan of the EM Office for 2017-18.
Budget of the Emergency Management Office: Annual Plan 2017/18
3.10 Attached as Annex 3 is a proposed budget of the Nelson Tasman Emergency Management (EM) Office for 2017/18. This is an update of the budget previously approved in the two Councils’ respective Long Term Plans. The main change to the proposed 2017/18 budget is that each Council will be paying about $30,000 less per annum. This is due to (a) increased income from interest and (b) savings in salaries as a result of changes in my role.
3.11 It is recommended to the CEG that the proposed budget be forwarded to the senior management teams of Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council for consideration in their respective Annual Plan processes.
NZ-RT2 Truck Replacement
3.12 The Nelson Tasman Emergency Response Team (also known as NZ-RT2) has an Isuzu truck that is fitted for light urban search and rescue, and is based at the Nelson Fire Station. The vehicle was purchased in 2009. Funding of $55,000 to replace the vehicle is available in the budget of the EM Office for financial year 2016/17. The team’s management has advised that the current vehicle is still fit for purpose and they would prefer to work on replacement in 2018. Therefore it is recommended to carry over $55,000 of capital funding from financial year 2016/17 to financial year 2017/18.
Recovery Planning: Changes to the CDEM Act 2002
3.13 The CDEM Amendment Act 2016 has now been passed by Parliament. Its aim is to strengthen the recovery phase following emergency events. Key changes are:
· Establishment of a legislative framework for recovery management, by providing a mandate for recovery managers and strengthening the requirement to plan for recovery
· Establishment of a ‘seamless transition’ from response into the initial recovery phase, using the mechanism of a transition notice that will make some emergency powers available for a specified period of time (local or national transition period)
3.14 Passage of the CDEM Act 2016 was brought forward as a result of the Kaikoura earthquakes; the Act was passed under urgency on 29 November 2016.
3.15 The changes to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 amend the definition of civil defence emergency management to make it clear that planning activities include recovery. Local authorities as a whole (not just the parts with CDEM responsibilities) are required to plan for recovery. The Amendment Act also requires CDEM Groups to amend their plans by 1 June 2018 to include strategic planning for recovery from the hazards and risks – we will be able to incorporate this requirement into the CDEM Group Plan review noted above.
3.16 The Amendment Act gives added responsibility and powers to the role of Recovery Manager. Our CDEM Group has had the practice of permanently appointing a recovery team led by a Recovery Manager. Our Recovery Manager until recently has been Peter Thomson, who will need to be replaced following his departure from Tasman District Council. Discussions are currently underway on a possible replacement. The other members of the recovery team, who hold the designation of Alternate Recovery Managers, are Clare Barton (NCC), Adrian Humphries (TDC) and Peter Anderson (NCC).
3.17 It will be necessary for the CDEM Group and its member agencies to consider the implications of these legislative changes for their recovery planning, including the overlap to business continuity planning. MCDEM has said that it will be providing further guidance and I understand this will include professional development for Recovery Managers.
Brief Updates
3.18 Work continues on the South Island Alpine Fault response project. This has taken on added impetus in light of the Kaikoura event. An overview and workshop will be provided as part of the Nelson/Tasman/ Marlborough joint CEG.
3.19 The national tsunami exercise “Tangaroa” was held over three days in August and September 2016. This went well in terms of the objectives set for the exercise and I’d like to thank the agencies and staff who provided their time over these three days.
3.20 The Nelson Tasman Lifelines Group has completed a report examining the interdependencies between regional utilities. A brief overview will be provided as part of the joint CEG meeting.
Roger Ball
Manager Organisational Assurance and Emergency Management
Attachments
Attachment 1: CDEM Group Plan Review: Project Plan (A1685134) ⇩
Attachment 2: Emergency Management Office Business Unit Plan Sept 2016-June 2018 (A1682798) ⇩
Attachment 3: A1701746 Estimates 2017_18 - Civil Defence - Draft Budget ⇩
|
|
Civil Defence Emergency Management Group 11 April 2017 |
REPORT R7275
Implications of Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To give effect to the requirements of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment (CDEM) Act 2016, including appointment of a Group Recovery Manager; appointment of Alternate Group Recovery Managers; and agreement on persons authorised to give notice of a local transition period.
2. Recommendation
|
Receives the report Implications of Civil Defence Emergency Management Amendment Act 2016 (R7275); and Approves the appointment of Richard Kirby as Nelson Tasman Group Recovery Manager; and Approves the following as Alternate Group Recovery Managers: Clare Barton, Adrian Humphries, and Peter Anderson; and Agrees that the following local authority elected representatives from Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council are authorised, in the following order of precedence, to give notice of a local transition period under s.25 of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (as amended): - Mayor of the district most affected by an emergency - Mayor of the other district - Deputy Mayor of the district most affected by an emergency - Deputy Mayor of the other district - Any elected local authority representative of Nelson City Council or Tasman District Council |
3. Background
3.1 The CDEM Amendment Act 2016 was passed by Parliament on 29 November 2016. Passage of the Amendment Act was brought forward as a result of the Kaikoura earthquakes. Its aim is to strengthen the recovery phase following emergency events.
3.2 The Amendment Act brings in important changes to the CDEM Act 2002, notably changing the definition of civil defence emergency management to make it clear that planning activities include recovery. Local authorities as a whole (not just the parts with CDEM responsibilities) are required to plan for recovery. The CDEM Amendment Act 2016 also requires CDEM Groups to amend their plans by 1 June 2018 to include strategic planning for recovery from hazards and risks. We will be able to incorporate this requirement into a review of the Nelson Tasman CDEM Group Plan, which is now under way.
4. Discussion
4.1 Appointment of Recovery Manager and Alternates
4.2 The CDEM Amendment Act gives added responsibility and powers to the role of the CDEM Group Recovery Manager, which is now a statutory role. The Act requires a CDEM Group to formally appoint a ‘suitably qualified and experienced person’ to be a Group Recovery Manager (s.29 (1)) by 31 May 2017. Recovery Managers are responsible for directing, co-ordinating the use of personnel, material, information, services and other resources during a local transition period (s.30A(1)). The Act also requires the appointment of at least one suitably qualified and experienced person to perform the functions and duties and exercise the powers of the Group Recovery Manager on the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of Group Recovery Manager or in the absence from duty of the Group Recovery Manager (s.29 (2)).
4.3 It is proposed to have the CDEM Group’s Joint Committee approve these appointments, as is currently done for our Group and Local Controllers (these are also statutory positions).
4.4 It is proposed that Richard Kirby, Engineering Services Manager, Tasman District Council, is appointed as the Nelson Tasman Group Recovery Manager. Mr Kirby is an experienced local government manager and has previously served as a CDEM Controller in the Manawatu. His appointment is supported by Tasman District Council.
4.5 The following people are already serving as Alternate Group Recovery Managers, having been previously approved by the Coordinating Executive Group (CEG). As noted above, their appointments now require the endorsement of the CDEM Joint Committee, following passage of the CDEM Amendment Act 2016. Under our Group arrangements they would be designated as Alternate Group Recovery Managers.
4.5.1 Clare Barton, Group Manager, Environment and Strategy
4.5.2 Adrian Humphries, Regulatory Services Manager, Tasman District Council
4.5.3 Peter Anderson, Manager Roading and Utilities, Nelson City Council
4.6 I am satisfied that all of the appointments nominated above are ‘suitably qualified and experienced person[s]’ to be a Group Recovery Manager under s.29 of the CDEM Act 2002 (as amended).
4.7 The main cost arising from these appointments is likely to be additional training and professional development for those holding the roles. Currently there is no nationally-recognised training for this role. The Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) has advised that a Recovery Manager’s course is under development. Based on the Controllers course, additional costs may be in the order of $5,000-$7,000 per annum.
4.8 Local Recovery Managers
4.9 The CDEM Amendment Act 2016 also provides that CDEM Groups ‘may’ appoint one or more Local Recovery Managers (s.30). Because of the unitary structure of the two Councils making up the CDEM Group, it is not considered necessary to have permanently appointed Local Recovery Managers, and no appointments are proposed at this time. If it became necessary at the time of an emergency event, we would be able to do so (for example, a Local Recovery Manager for Golden Bay was appointed after the 2011 flood).
4.10 Transition Periods
4.11 The CDEM Amendment Act 2016 creates a new legislative mechanism, which is the option of declaring a local transition period to assist the recovery phase following an emergency event. This mechanism for declaring a transition period is in some respects an extension of the declaration of emergency. The transition period enables the use of emergency powers during the recovery phase. These powers were not previously available to Recovery Managers.
4.12 To give effect to this new provision, the CDEM Group must, by 31 May 2017, appoint at least one person to give notice of local transition periods for the Group’s area. The CDEM Amendment Act 2016 sets out that this be a Mayor or other elected representative, in the same way that a declaration of emergency is made. It is proposed therefore that the Nelson Tasman CDEM Group’s arrangements for giving notice of a local transition period should mirror our existing arrangements for declaring a state of local emergency. Those latter arrangements, set out in the Nelson Tasman CDEM Group Plan (s. 5.4), state that a declaration of local emergency would be declared by the following:
4.12.1 Mayor of the respective district most affected
4.12.2 Mayor of the other district
4.12.3 Deputy Mayor of the respective district most affected
4.12.4 Deputy Mayor of the other district
4.12.5 Any elected local authority representative
4.13 It is noted that the Minister of CDEM may also declare a state of local emergency or national emergency. Similarly, the Minister may also give notice of a local or national transition period.
4.14 It is proposed that the arrangements outlined in the recommendations above for giving notice of a local transition period should come into effect immediately. These updated arrangements will be included in the revised Nelson Tasman CDEM Group Plan, now under review.
5. Options
|
Option 1: Appoint Recovery Manager and Alternates, and agree those able to give notice of local transition periods |
|
|
Advantages |
· Meet the requirements of the CDEM Amendment Act 2016 and enhance the CDEM Group’s ability to recover effectively. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Additional responsibilities and higher expectations around recovery planning not yet supported by adequate national and local plans. |
|
Option 2: Decline to appointment Recovery Manager and Alternates, or to nominate those able to give notice of local transition periods |
|
|
Advantages |
· Additional responsibilities would not be taken on. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· The requirements of the CDEM Amendment Act 2016 would not be met. |
6. Conclusion
6.1 Adopting the recommendations contained in this report will ensure the CDEM Group continues to meet the requirements of the CDEM Act 2002 by implementing the changes contained in the CDEM Amendment Act 2016.
6.2 Further information about the CDEM Amendment Act 2016 is located online at http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/cdem-sector/cdem-framework/legislation-and-regulations/civil-defence-emergency-management-amendment-act/
Roger Ball
Manager Organisational Assurance and Emergency Management
Attachments
