National Headquarters
Level 12
80 The Terrace
PO Box 2133
Wel ington
New Zealand
Phone +64 4 496 3600
12 April 2022
A Boocock
By email: [FYI request #16938 email]
Dear A Boocock
Information Request – Group Manager positions
I refer to your follow-up questions dated 15 February 2022 which referenced our previous responses
on 11 November 2021, and 14 February 2022. You requested information about the recent
restructure at Fire and Emergency New Zealand.
On 9 March 2022, we wrote to you advising of an extension to the time limit to decide on your
request.
Introductory comments
To provide context to our response, Fire and Emergency New Zealand believe we have faithfully
responded to your requests for information in accordance with the provisions of the Official
Information Act 1982 (“OIA”), taking care to provide complete answers to your questions based on
the information available to us at the time.
In your email of 15 February 2022, you commented that the pre-conditions for applying for positions
were different for some rounds and you have asked for clarity about the different messages that
were provided in each round.
To clarify: We initially had available all newly created GM positions. There was a lot of interest in
these positions, both from affected people (people whose substantive permanent positions had
been disestablished) and non-affected people.
Affected people had preference (over non-affected people) for vacant positions they were found to
be suitable for.
Due to the number of people interested in positions, compared to the number of available positions,
it was decided that the first round of interviews would be split into two parts. This is because
conducting one larger interview round involving all candidates from both groups (affected and non-
affected) would likely have resulted in people from the non-affected group being interviewed for
positions which they would be unable to obtain, due to the number of affected candidates that
would be potentially suitable.
First round of interviews
• The first part (or first round), and therefore the first group to be interviewed, were affected
people.
• We called this a “redeployment round”.
• All affected people, who were found suitable for positions in this part of the interview
process, were then placed in roles (assuming the number of suitable people did not
exceed the number of roles available in the district).
• The second part (or second round), and therefore second group to be interviewed, were
people who had not been considered in the first part of the interview process (detailed
immediately above).
• This can also be referred to as the “recruitment round”.
• This was predominantly people who were unaffected.
• However, affected people who hadn’t already gone through the process in the first part
of this process could also apply for the remaining vacancies.
• Affected people who had been considered during the first part – and were found
unsuitable – could not reapply during part two of the first round of interviews.
The majority of roles were filled during the first round of interviews (ie parts one and two).
Subsequent rounds of interviews
This first round of interviews (both parts as set out above) was then followed by several more
interview rounds. This reflects how the interview process evolved to reflect that there were stil
vacancies after the first round of interviews, and a number of rounds needed to be completed to fill
all vacancies.
Any remaining roles were advertised and anyone (regardless of previous applications) could apply
during the subsequent rounds of interviews. During these interview rounds, some people who had
previously applied did reapply during this time.
This means that an affected person could be considered during the first part of the first round of
interviews. If that person was unsuccessful, they were excluded from being considered again during
second part of the first round. However, if a role was still available, that affected person could apply
in the subsequent rounds.
In relation to the emails from Kerry Gregory, we acknowledge that the messages may have been
confusing as they did not refer to the group of affected staff who had been unsuccessful in recent
interviews during the deployment round. However, those individuals should have been notified that
they could not reapply in the second part of the process when they were told their application was
unsuccessful.
The messaging could have been clearer and explicitly noted that those affected people who were
unsuccessful would not be considered.
Response to questions
In accordance with the provisions of the OIA, Fire and Emergency’s response to each of your
questions is set out in the table below. Where we can, we have also addressed your requests for
clarification. To the best of our knowledge, our responses reflect the information that Fire and
Emergency holds on your questions and requests for clarifications
Questions or requests for clarification
Responses
I draw your attention to the email from Kerry
Please see our introductory comments
Gregory to 'Whole Country' Fri 30 April, 6.41pm,
above.
where he confirms that "Last Friday we opened
applications for the residual Group Manager (GM) This email was sent during the second
and Community Risk Manager (CRM) roles
part of first round of interviews, hence
throughout the country. With a week to go before the reference to “residual” roles.
applications close, I want to provide some clarity
around a couple of frequently asked questions
we’ve been receiving about the roles. I also want
to encourage each and every one of you who have
the suitable skills and experience (as outlined
below) and are interested in a role to get your
application in. Applications for the GM position are
open to everyone in Fire and Emergency, and the
CRM roles are also open to external candidates".
Yet, you state in your reply of 14 Feb 2022 that:
"Once a person had been deemed ineligible for
redeployment, they were not able to reapply
through redeployment processes for the same
position".
Your statement contradicts Kerry Gregory's email;
an email to ALL STAFF which clearly indicates that
everyone in FENZ was eligible to apply in this
second round of GM redeployment/first round of
recruitment in the period April - June 2021.
Please explain this disparity.
My concern around this disparity is further backed Please see our introductory comments
by the fol owing:
above.
1) OIA response of 11 Nov 2021:
We have provided further details about
FENZ response - "The order for consideration of
the process in our introductory
applications for the new tranche 2 positions was:
comments.
• Round 1: Affected employees only.
• Subsequent rounds: Any other applicants (with
The previous reference to “other”
any remaining affected employees who were held
applicants (in subsequent rounds) refers
to be suitable for the position being afforded
to the subsequent rounds of interviews –
preference)".
and does not include part two of the first
round of interviews.
It does not state in your response that anyone who This is how we interpreted your previous
had previously applied was excluded from ANY
question.
following, or specific, application rounds
(principal y, the second round of GM
redeployment/first round of recruitment, April -
June 2021).
2) OIA response of 11 Nov 2021:
This is correct, they did apply in
My question - "5. Did any 'affected' staff who were subsequent recruitment rounds. As
unsuccessful in the first round of interviews for
above, affected people who were
GM, then apply again during the second round of
unsuccessful in the first part of the initial
appointments?"
recruitment round (redeployment), did
FENZ Response - "Some affected staff who were
not apply in the second part of the initial
unsuccessful in the first round of interviews for a
recruitment round, but were able to, and
role did apply in later recruitment rounds,
did, in later recruitment rounds.
(including in relation to the Group Manager role)."
3) OIA response of 11 Nov 2021:
No response required.
My question - "7. Please supply any
correspondence from SDLT or the ELT which
provided guidance or clarity around whether or not
'affected' staff who were unsuccessful during the
first round of GM appointments, could reapply
along with 'impacted' and others during the second
round of GM appointments.
FENZ response - "There was no specific guidance
from Service Delivery Leadership Team or
Executive Leadership Team on this matter. This
aspect of your request is therefore refused under
sections 18(g) and 18(e) of the OIA, in that it is not
held by Fire and Emergency and the document
alleged to contain the information does not exist.
4) OIA response of 11 Nov 2021:
They were able to reapply after the
My question - "8. If 'affected' staff were excluded
second part of the initial recruitment
from re-applying, please provide the rationale
round which took place after the
behind this".
redeployment round. For the subsequent
FENZ response - "They were not excluded after
rounds some people did re-apply and
round 1 and some did re-apply".
some were interviewed.
Please advise:
Please see our introductory comments
1) why there is such a disparity between:
above.
- the GM advertisement of around 23 April 2021,
excluding some staff from reapplying
- Kerry Gregory's email to the "Whole Country"
sent 30 April 2021, where he provided clarity that
the GM applications were open to everyone for
that round.
- FENZ OIA response of 11 Nov 2021: "They were
not excluded after round 1 and some did re-apply".
- FENZ OIA response of 14 Feb 2022: "Once a
person had been deemed ineligible for
redeployment, they were not able to reapply
through redeployment processes for the same
position"
2) if it is in fact correct that previously unsuccessful Please see our introductory comments
applicants could not reapply in the Apr - June 2021 above.
GM application round (advertised around 23 April
2021), who made this decision? And why were
they excluded?
3) if previously unsuccessful applicants were
We presume you intend to refer to the
denied the opportunity to reapply in the Apr - June Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act
2021 round of applications for the GM roles, how
2017 (the Act). We consider the process
does this fit with the FENZ Act 2007 Sn 26 - 30?
complied with the requirements of the
Act.
3) please explain why some of those 'affected' staff Please see our introductory comments
who were previously unsuccessful at GM
above.
appointments in the first round (redeployment),
did then apply in the second round (Apr - June
2021) when they were supposedly excluded?
4) which region(s) and district(s) were those
As above, no affected people who had
'affected' staff in qn 3 above - those who reapplied already applied for a particular role in the
in the Apr - June 2021 GM application round,
redeployment round (step 1 of the first
based?
round of interviews) and had been found
to be unsuitable applied in the
recruitment round (step 1 of the first
round of interviews).
Accordingly, we hold no information
about the regions or districts applicants
were from, as there were no applicants
within the scope of your request.
Consequently, your request is declined
under section 18(e) of the OIA as the
information requested does not exist.
I have submitted many OIA requests around the
Please see our introductory comments
FENZ restructure, and the FENZ responses appear
and our previous responses above.
to obfuscate the answers I seek.
FENZ responses have been contradictory, whereas
they should be straightforward.
Either Kerry Gregory was correct, and all staff
could apply in the Apr - June 2021 GM application
round. Opening up applications to all staff as Kerry
Gregory stated, would indicate this was a
recruitment round and previously successful
applicants could quite rightly reapply.
Or, contrary to Sn 26 - 30 of the FENZ Act 2017, a
select group of staff were excluded from
reapplying in this Apr - June 2021 GM application
round.
Which is it?
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision.
Information about how to make a complaint is available at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or
freephone 0800 802 602.
Yours sincerely
Nicky Chilton
Director, Office of the Chief Executive
