Dear Mark MacDonald  
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your information request, dated 25
March 2022.   

In accordance with section 15 of the Official Information Act 1982 we will
try to respond to your request as soon as possible and in any event no
later than 20 working days after the day your request was received. If we
are unable to respond to your request by then, we will notify you of an
extension of that timeframe.

In order to gather information relevant to your request, we may make
details of your request known to Fire and Emergency personnel who are
likely to be able to assist with the identification and collation of that
information.  This will not include your identity as the requestor, unless
it is reasonably necessary to share that in order to gather information
relevant to your request.  Please let us know immediately if you have any
concerns about the sharing of details of your request, including your
identity, within Fire and Emergency.  We will contact you to discuss your
concerns and how they will affect our approach to processing your request.

We will also contact you if:

·         we require further information to clarify, or to enable us to
process, your request;

·         we need to tell a third party who you are, in order to consult
on your request or information that relates to it.

Kind regards

Official Information Team

[1][IMG][2][IMG][3][IMG][4][IMG][5][IMG][6][IMG]

show quoted sections

Kia ora Mark

 

Please see attached regarding your official information request.

 

Ngā mihi

 

Information Requests Team

National Headquarters, Level 12, 80 The Terrace

PO Box 2133, Wellington 6140

 

[1][FENZ request email]

[2]www.fireandemergency.nz

 

 

[3][IMG][4][IMG][5][IMG][6][IMG][7][IMG][8][IMG]

show quoted sections

Tēnā koe Mark

In your request for information dated 25 March 2022, you referred to a recent interview on Radio New Zealand. You quoted me as saying:

"… this was quite clearly articulated in the Coral Shaw Report that the BCO should provide the process but the recommendations for action should go back to the decision maker who is the line manager or the appropriate chief of the actual brigade or whatever area we’re talking about. And that is then where the disciplinary action takes place so we’re not going to confuse or merge those."

My quote was provided in the context of an unscripted question and answer interview where part of the recommendations were summarised. My statement in the interview referring to the recommendation going back to the decision maker was not false, so a correction is not required.
You have asked for “the precise wording from the Shaw Report, verbatim, that Ms Bleakley is referring to". In my response dated 27 April 2022, I referred you to the section of the Coral Shaw report that I was referencing. Again that is found on page 73 in the “Conclusions and Recommendations” section, which reads:

This sets out the recommended requirements for an independent investigation process. It identifies three aspects. The third part refers to the report and recommendation being sent to the decision maker, which is exactly what I said. To provide further context in the course of the interview, and to ensure that the public were clear on what that would mean, I further stated that the decision maker would be the line manager, or the appropriate chief of the actual brigade. That is clearly not false, but rather further helpful context, in the course of a live Q&A interview.
I trust this clarifies the matter for you.

Nāku noa, nā

Raewyn Bleakley
Deputy Chief Executive, Office of the Chief Executive

show quoted sections