DOCSLIB.ORG

Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project The Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project was developed to support earthquake recovery by enabling the collection and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials from red zoned residential properties prior to demolition. The key purpose was to minimise the associated risks to human health and the environment. The devastating effects of the Canterbury Earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011 continue to shape the city around us as Christchurch recovers. We have seen the overwhelming task of rebuilding a city realised, with a new precinct based central city, changes to transport networks and the re-zoning of land to manage new risks of liquefaction. On a daily basis the changes to the urban landscape remind us of the significance of the events that literally shape the redevelopment of Christchurch. Decimating the central business district and the majority of historic and tall buildings across the city, the earthquakes also had significant effects in the east and north east residential suburbs. Huge swathes of these suburbs, where liquefaction created a number of issues including the immediate disruption of services and damage to infrastructure, were subsequently assessed and rezoned for demolition, due the property damage which had occurred and instability of land. Affected properties were acquired (compulsorily) by the Crown to ensure the removal of the hazard posed by residential development on instable ground, creating the Canterbury Residential Red Zone (RRZ). The dispersion of people as a result of the earthquake and the restricted access meant that many of these properties were left in an as is state, still containing an undisturbed cache of personal possessions and household items, including hazardous substances and materials which would need appropriate disposal. Many of the common household items that would typically be managed through council collection services where likely to be present in these properties. The unknown volume and types of hazardous material posed a significant risk to human health and the environment if not managed properly; with drainage to storm water and contamination of soil likely. It also posed an occupational risk to demolition companies, while management had the potential to cause delays and otherwise hinder the recovery process. In 2011, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council (CCC) and Waimakariri District Council (WDC) formed a working group to address the significant volume of household hazardous waste (HHW) orphaned through the compulsory demolition of approximately 8,000 residential properties. The result was a coordinated cross agency approach for safely managing the collection and disposal of this hazardous material, enabling safe demolition of the red zoned properties and supporting earthquake recovery. Environment Canterbury took a leadership role and in January 2012 successfully attained funding from the Ministry for the Environment for a three year project to remove and safely dispose of an estimated 100 tonnes of HHW with 20 percent of properties expected to contain HHW. The collaborative project utilised existing council collection systems and advertising to promote the clearance of properties by residents where possible. In addition to this licensed removals contractors visited each individual property, checking for, identifying and removing any hazardous material remaining, otherwise referred to as Household Hazardous Waste (HHW). Council drop-offs: Existing collection mechanisms (Council Transfer Stations) were provided funding to open up their collection sites for RRZ properties, so that individuals could dispose of HHW appropriately when leaving their RRZ properties. This was supported with advertising and a communications campaign which built on existing information on HHW. This was very successful with over 200 tonnes of HHW collected through these sites. Christchurch City Council and Waimakriri District Council provided the in-kind staff time and grant funding covered the disposal of HHW generated in addition to calculated background collection quantities for each site. Using these existing sites which were known to the local communities was particularly successful, building on the existing knowledge around disposal of hazardous substances, with the infrastructure already in place to manage this waste stream in an appropriate manner. WDC and CCC also provided assisted collections for those unable to drop off their HHW material, this applied to elderly and infirm residents. Communications were key to this with an information brochure (based on existing collection information) developed and disseminated to all properties defined within the RRZ. Regular advertisements were also posted in Local newspapers. Property clearances: Contracts were awarded to two Waste Management companies to conduct the inspection and removal of HHW from all RRZ properties prior to demolition. CERA appointed a project manager to coordinate the clearances, with ECan, CCC and WDC forming a steering group to manage issues as they arose. Initially CERA planned to coordinate the removal of HHW prior to demolition through a cluster based approach, grouping areas of red zoned properties for demolition and working closely with demolition contractors to coordinate the clearances. After an initial trial in the suburb of Bexley, key difficulties accessing damaged and unsafe properties were highlighted as were physical risks: Damaged land; electrical hazards and overgrown vegetation were common as were a number of illegal occupations of damaged buildings. Together the parties involved worked through these hazards and established a notification and access protocol. This approach should have allowed the systematic and safe clearance of all properties prior to demolition. Unfortunately this systematic approach was not realised due to complications in the settlement process, with many residents choosing to settle for the property value with CERA and improvement (house) value separately with their insurer/The Earthquake Commission (EQC). This led to sporadic clearances as properties were settled, communication between CERA, the insurance companies and demolition contractors were poor, making the process near impossible to manage efficiently, because of this some demolitions occurred without notification, with buildings removed before clearance of HHW. This was exactly what the project sought to prevent. An adaptive response was required; the reliance on the insurance companies was an entirely reactive process, with the insurance companies often not providing the necessary notification to allow the project manager to arrange clearance of HHW. This approach also caused inefficiencies and access difficulties for the removal contractors. A flexible approach was required. Formulation of the Waste and Emergency Management Team (WEMT), a cross agency team including former compliance and health and safety officers from CCC and ECan was a pivotal change in the model. WEMT took over the Project Management role and utilised a proactive approach, working closely with Project Management Officers (representing Insurance companies), demolition contractors and the waste removal contractors to coordinate the clearances of properties before demolition was scheduled. Establishment of this field team improved communication, providing a flexible approach and building relationships between the involved parties. Along with coordinating property clearances, WEMT also provided regular auditing to ensure the removals contractors were reporting accurately. Through which we have a robust dataset of the material collected from the 6,768 properties inspected for hazardous substances prior to demolition across the duration of the project. This data is particularly interesting as it represents a statistically significant snapshot of the HHW present in our homes. By understanding the types and volumes of material stored, local authorities and interested organisations will be able to better prepare for future disaster scenarios and target their day to day programs to reduce the risk of these products effecting the environment. The project was completed in December 2015, four years after it began. With the majority of RRZ properties now demolished. Clearances encompassed both Christchurch flatland and Port Hills properties deemed uninhabitable. While access, site safety and coordination of clearances did pose some issues, the project achieved an effective clearance of 84 percent of properties in the RRZ, a significant triumph given the complexities of the project. The project was an incredible success with over 334 tonnes of household hazardous waste collected and disposed of appropriately. This material included over 200 additional tonnes of HHW dropped off at council transfer stations, a real testament to the in kind time provided by WDC and CCC and over 130 tonnes collected directly from properties in the RRZ. The total expenditure over the course of the Project was $1.16million. This was provided through the funding from the Ministry for the Environment’s Waste Minimisation Fund ($863,000) and in-kind contributions from WDC, CCC and ECan. Key successes for the project included but were not limited to the safe collection, treatment and disposal of the above wastes, protecting human health and the environment. Through the separate collection of these materials the project also
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seismic Ratings for Degrading Structural Systems
    205 GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE 22 FEBRUARY 2011 CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE Misko Cubrinovski1, Brendon Bradley1, Liam Wotherspoon2, Russell Green3, Jonathan Bray4, Clint Wood5, Michael Pender2, 6 7 8 1 John Allen , Aaron Bradshaw , Glenn Rix , Merrick Taylor , Kelly Robinson1, Duncan Henderson1, Simona Giorgini1, Kun Ma1, Anna Winkley1, Josh Zupan4, Thomas O’Rourke9, 10 11 Greg DePascale , Donnald Wells SUMMARY The 22 February 2011, Mw6.2-6.3 Christchurch earthquake is the most costly earthquake to affect New Zealand, causing 181 fatalities and severely damaging thousands of residential and commercial buildings, and most of the city lifelines and infrastructure. This manuscript presents an overview of observed geotechnical aspects of this earthquake as well as some of the completed and on-going research investigations. A unique aspect, which is particularly emphasized, is the severity and spatial extent of liquefaction occurring in native soils. Overall, both the spatial extent and severity of liquefaction in the city was greater than in the preceding 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake, including numerous areas that liquefied in both events. Liquefaction and lateral spreading, variable over both large and short spatial scales, affected commercial structures in the Central Business District (CBD) in a variety of ways including: total and differential settlements and tilting; punching settlements of structures with shallow foundations; differential movements of components of complex structures; and interaction of adjacent structures via common foundation soils. Liquefaction was most severe in residential areas located to the east of the CBD as a result of stronger ground shaking due to the proximity to the causative fault, a high water table approximately 1m from the surface, and soils with composition and states of high susceptibility and potential for liquefaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Residential Red Zone: Summary of Technical Information As at Area ID: 15A, September 2016 15B
    Richmond residential red zone: Summary of Technical Information as at Area ID: 15A, September 2016 15B Purpose of this document: The following information provides a summary of the local environmental values, conditions and potential hazards. The information has been gathered using the best available technical data held by a number of agencies and organisations. It does not identify or assess land use options or the feasibility of land uses. The information in this document is not, and should not be interpreted as, a pre-determination, recommendation or decision about future use. No decisions regarding the future use of this land have been made. Overview of Richmond residential red zone (Area 15): Area 15 is approximately 27 hectares in area and adjoins River Road along the margins of the Ōtākaro/Avon River from Banks Avenue to the east and Fitzgerald Avenue to the west. To the north and west, Area 15 adjoins existing urban areas. This Area had a number of significant home gardens with mature trees some of which are still being tended. Area 15 is susceptible to a number of natural hazards, which can potentially occur either in isolation or collectively leading to a number of adverse cascading effects. The risk from many of these hazards will increase over time due to the accelerating effects of sea level rise. The area is particularly prone to lateral spreading. Land contamination may be an issue for much of the site. Location Map 1 Natural Environment and Cultural Setting and Features Natural Environment Adjacent to the Ōtākaro/Avon River and Tributaries Significant Ecological Site (site ID no.
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Red Zone Fact Sheet
    23 June 2011 Residential Red Zone Fact Sheet Geotechnical engineers Tonkin & Taylor have assessed and mapped residential land damage caused by the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. Some land in the Christchurch City and Waimakariri District areas has been so badly damaged by the earthquakes since 4 September 2010 it is unlikely it can be rebuilt on for a considerable period of time. Engineers have mapped these areas and categorised them as residential red zone. These properties are located in: • the east of Christchurch (along the Avon and in related areas usually associated with waterways or former waterways); • in the north-east of Christchurch (e.g. Brooklands); and • in the beach area of Waimakariri District (i.e. Kairaki Beach). There are currently about 5000 properties in the Christchurch City Council area and around 100 properties in the Waimakariri District Council area in the residential red zone. The criteria for defining areas as residential red zone are: • There is significant and extensive area wide land damage; • Most buildings are uneconomic to repair • There is a high risk of further damage to land and buildings from low- levels of shaking; and • The success of engineering solutions would be uncertain and uneconomic; and • Any repair would be disruptive and take a considerable period of time. In the residential red zone, area-wide land damage is so extensive there is an increased likelihood of further damage due to liquefaction and lateral spreading from the ongoing series of aftershocks. The 5.7 and 6.3 magnitude earthquakes on 13 June 2011 demonstrated this. Homeowners in the residential red zone face lengthy disruption that could go on for years.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln Planning Review December 2015
    Lincoln Planning Review December 2015. Volume 7. Issue 1-2 Coastal modelling of sea level rise for the Christchurch coastal environment Whose interests count? The Malvern Hills Protection Society and an irrigation scheme proposal A failed attempt at collaborative water planning Selwyn Waihora Variation 1 ISSN 1175-0987 Lincoln Planning Review, 7 (1-2) (2015) Table of Contents Lincoln Planning Review is the journal of the Lincoln University EDITORIAL ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Planning Association (LUPA) Sarah Edwards, Acting Editor-in-Chief and is an online publication produced twice each year and PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES primarily edited by students Coastal modelling of sea level rise for the Christchurch coastal The vision is “to be the pre- eminent source of information environment ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 3 Ashton EAVES, Crile DOSCHER on planning issues, research and education in and affecting the Central and upper South RESEARCH Island”. Whose interests count? The Malvern Hills Protection Society and an Contact LPR: irrigation scheme proposal ����������������������������������������������������������16 Editor Nicola SNOYINK LPR c/o NRE Building PO Box 85084 FIELD NOTES AND CASE STUDIES Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647 Canterbury A failed attempt at collaborative water planning: Selwyn Waihora New Zealand Variation 1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Hamish G. RENNIE Email: [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Christchurch Retail, Red Zones and the Rebuild
    Strategic Consultancy Retail Intelligence Rome wasn’t built in a day: Christchurch Retail, Red Zones and the Rebuild www.joneslanglasalle.co.nz 2 Executive Summary: The prohibition of redevelopment in large parts of Christchurch is significantly impacting the shape of the urban environment of the city. This is being executed through the identification of Red Zones. The majority of the residential Red Zones are located in; the east of Christchurch (along the Avon and in related areas usually associated with waterways or former waterways); in the north-east of Christchurch (e.g. Brooklands); and in the beach area of Waimakariri District (i.e. Kairaki Beach). There are currently about 5,000 properties in the Christchurch City Council area and around 100 properties in the Waimakariri District Council area in the residential red zone. Future trends suggest: A hollowing out of the area of Christchurch around the Avon River. A population drift to the North of Christchurch A population drift to the Southwest of Christchurch A significant uplift in populations of the small towns around Christchurch Growth in retail spending in these areas will create additional demand for close to 80,000 sqm of retail space. Just over 40,000 sqm of retail development is currently in the pipeline suggesting there remain opportunities to tap into this growing demand profile heading forward. We see the greatest opportunities in the Supermarket / Grocery space, DIY, Home Furnishings and Food and Beverage sectors. This development is however not without its challenges as stakeholders in Christchurch remain prickly to proposed intensification at the periphery at what they often see is at the expense of the CBD.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal and Recovery
    NEW ZEALAND RED CROSS EVALUATION OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE APPEAL & RECOVERY PROGRAMME RESEARCH REPORT Scarlett Moody Liz Morley Carl Davidson February 2017 LEAD RESEARCHER SENIOR RESEARCHER DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Preface I would like to acknowledge those who have gone before us, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the those who lost their lives, those injured and those who lost New Zealand Red Cross volunteers, members and staff their communities, places of work, play, learning and living that have given so generously of their time, knowledge, following the Canterbury earthquake sequence. experience and skills. I would also like to acknowledge the significant contribution of New Zealand Red Cross National It is a privilege to share with you the findings of the formal Board and the members of the Earthquake Commission, and independent evaluation of the New Zealand Red Cross who have served to provide steadfast direction and Earthquake Recovery Programme for greater Christchurch. governance to this programme of work. The leadership This evaluation brings to a close this significant programme and support of the National Society office in Wellington of work. The programme commenced following the 7.1 has been unwavering in their commitment to greater magnitude earthquake in September 2010 and the 6.3 Christchurch. We owe a debt of gratitude to so many for magnitude aftershock six months later on 22 February the care and support and commitment to these recovery 2011. Since then greater Christchurch has been subject to efforts. thousands of aftershocks making the recovery process challenging and complex. New Zealand Red Cross will The journey of recovery will continue in greater continue to support communities in greater Christchurch Christchurch for many years to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Staying in the Red Zones Te Manawaroa Ki Te Pae Whero
    Report Summary Staying in the red zones Monitoring human rights in the Canterbury earthquake recovery Te manawaroa ki te pae whero Whakaora rü whenua Waitaha he aroturuki tika tangata Dr Margaret MacDonald Dr Sally Carlton Senior Human Rights Specialist Human Rights Specialist New Zealand Human Rights Commission October 2016 He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, it is the people, it is the people Report Summary: Staying in the Red Zones Part 1 Introduction Körero whakataki The Canterbury earthquakes resulted in serious human rights challenges which the Human Rights Commission (the Commission) has been acting on and monitoring since September 2010. As a follow up to the Commission’s 2013 publication Monitoring Human Rights in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, this 2016 report focuses on the human rights impacts of the decision to classify certain land in Canterbury as red zoned—specifically for members of the small group of people who did not accept the Crown offer to purchase their red zoned property or vacant section, and who have continued to live on or own land in the now largely abandoned red zone areas. The report is based on results from surveys and interviews completed by people either living in or owning vacant land in Canterbury’s residential red zones (RRZs). Of the 103 people who responded to the Commission’s survey, 62 continued to live in the red zone, and 41 owned vacant land in the residential red zone in mid-2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Quake Outcasts V Minister of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA478/2016 [2017] NZCA 332 BETWEEN QUAKE OUTCASTS Appellant AND THE MINISTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY First Respondent THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY AUTHORITY Second Respondent Hearing: 12 April 2017 Court: French, Miller and Winkelmann JJ Counsel: FMR Cooke QC and L E Bain for Appellant K G Stephen and P Higbee for Respondents Judgment: 1 August 2017 at 10.00 am JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal is allowed. The substantive judgment and costs judgment of the High Court are set aside. B The Minister’s decision to approve the Recovery Plan, under which nothing was offered for uninsured improvements, is declared unlawful. C Leave is reserved for the parties to file further submissions on remedy. D The respondents will pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band B basis and usual disbursements. QUAKE OUTCASTS v THE MINISTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY & ANOR [2017] NZCA 332 [1 August 2017] E Costs in the High Court should be fixed there in light of this judgment. ____________________________________________________________________ REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Miller J) TABLE OF CONTENTS A short historical narrative [7] What the Supreme Court said about insurance status [11] The August 2015 offer [25] Features of the offer [35] Rationale for the offer [39] (a) Moral hazard [43] (b) Cost to the Crown [44] (c) Fairness to other owners [47] (d) Causation [49] Acceptance of the offer [51] The remaining plaintiffs and their circumstances [52] State of the red zones [55] The statutory framework and standard of review [60] The legislation [60] The standard of review [69] The judgment under appeal [76] Was the Minister entitled to discriminate by insurance status? [78] Was the August 2015 offer otherwise unreasonable? [82] What can be done now? [93] Decision [106] [1] This appeal addresses a government decision to discriminate among landowners in the Christchurch residential red zones (RRZ) when offering to purchase their properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Affordability in Post-Earthquake Christchurch
    Housing Affordability in Post-Earthquake Christchurch John McDonagh, Lincoln University, Christchurch Prior to the devastating 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the city of Christchurch was already exhibiting signs of a housing affordability crisis. The causes and symptoms were similar to those being experienced in Auckland, but the substantial damage to the housing stock caused by the earthquakes added new dimensions and impetus to the problem. Large swathes of the most affordable housing stock in the east of the city were effectively destroyed by the earthquakes. In itself this would have pushed the mean house price upwards, but compounding problems exacerbated the situation. These include the price effects of reduced supply of both rented and owned housing and increased demand from both displaced residents and an influx of rebuild workers. The need for additional temporary housing while repairs were undertaken and the associated insurance pay-outs bidding up rents with improved rental returns leading to increased interest in property investment. Land supply constraints and consenting issues inhibiting the build of new housing and political infighting and uncertainty regarding the future of parts of the city leading to a flight of development activity to peripheral locations and adjoining local authorities. Concerns that the erosion of the city council rating base combined with inadequacy of insurance cover for infrastructure will lead to large rates increases, increased development costs and reduced amenities and services in future years. These and other issuers will be elaborated on in this paper with a view to exploring the way forward for affordable housing Christchurch City. 1960’s and the development of the eastern suburbs of Christchurch.
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan July 2015
    Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan July 2015 PUB328.1507 Published in July 2015 by Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Christchurch, New Zealand Contact Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Private Bag 4999, Christchurch 8140 [email protected] 0800 7464 2372 toll-free www.cera.govt.nz Citation Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2015). Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan. Christchurch: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. ISBN 978-0-908343-04-1 (print) 978-0-908343-05-8 (online) Crown copyright © This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licence. You are free to copy, distribute, and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and abide by the other licence terms. Please note you may not use any departmental or governmental emblem, logo, or coat of arms in any way that infringes any provision of the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. Use the wording ‘Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’ in your attribution, not the CERA logo. Contents Contents .........................................................................................................................1 Executive summary .........................................................................................................2 1 Recovery Plan purpose and process .........................................................................4 2 Context .....................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Heritage Assessment for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
    Initial Heritage Assessment for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority RICHMOND RESIDENTIAL RED ZONE Heritage New Zealand File No. 33002-278 23 February 2015 The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), on behalf of the Crown, has property ownership and management responsibilities for land purchased in the residential red zone. Under the Policy for Government Departments Management of Historic Heritage, 2004 all Government departments are to consider heritage values when acquiring, managing and disposing of land.1 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga has a role under Cabinet requirement of 27 August 2007 (CAB min (07) 31/1a) and 11 April 2011 (DOM (11) 28) with regard to the proposed disposal of land in order that historic heritage values can be assessed. The 2011 review of Heritage New Zealand’s Crown Land Disposal notification process encouraged Heritage New Zealand to assist government departments to prepare heritage inventories and assessments prior to disposal. For this reason, Cabinet decided that ‘land previously assessed by the disposing agency and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust [now Heritage New Zealand] to be of low heritage significance being exempt from the process.’ Note that land and improvements with identified heritage values will be subject to the normal Heritage New Zealand Notification Process at the time of Crown disposal. Please refer to the attached guidelines. This pre-assessment provides a record of identified heritage at the current time that will inform the disposal process. The attached heritage assessment provides an initial assessment of ‘known’ heritage values of the residential red zone based on information held by Heritage New Zealand. It is an initial assessment only and is not intended to provide a detailed heritage assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Zone. the Report Reflects the Views of Individuals Affected by the Red Zoning Who Did Not Accept the Within This Cohort
    Staying in the red zones Monitoring human rights in the Canterbury earthquake recovery Te manawaroa ki te pae whero Whakaora rü whenua Waitaha he aroturuki tika tangata A report by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission about the people living or owning vacant land in the residential red zones in mid-2015 He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, it is the people, it is the people Brooklands community farewell event, 9 September, 2012. Staying in the red zones Monitoring human rights in the Canterbury earthquake recovery Te manawaroa ki te pae whero Whakaora rü whenua Waitaha he aroturuki tika tangata A report by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission about the people living or owning vacant land in the residential red zones in mid-2015 October 2016 Dr Margaret MacDonald Dr Sally Carlton Senior Human Rights Specialist Human Rights Specialist New Zealand Human Rights Commission Contact Human Rights Commission InfoLine Office of Human Rights Proceedings 0800 496 877 (toll free) Te Tari Whakatau Take Tika Tangata Fax 09 377 3593 (attn: InfoLine) Email [email protected] Email [email protected] PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street, TXT 0210 236 4253 Auckland 1141 www.hrc.co.nz Language Line and NZ Sign Language interpreters available If you have a hearing or speech impairment, you can contact the HRC using the New Zealand Relay Service. NZ Relay is a telecommunications service and all calls are confidential. www.nzrelay.co.nz Tämaki Makaurau � Auckland Level 7,
    [Show full text]