Dear New Zealand Fire Service Commission,

NZ is a signatory to an agreement between the USA, Canada and Australia to provide resources to each other in the event of major wild fires. Over the last 14 years or so, New Zealand has deployed personnel to the Australia, Canada and the USA on a regular basis. Prior to 2014, NZ has never declined a request for resources.
To support this initiative the NRFA maintains a program and resource pool of fire and incident management personnel who train and prepared for national and international deployments.
In return, the benefits to NZ of the international assistance we have provided has been significant. We very rarely experience the level of incident size or complexity as Australia and North America and assisting with these major emergencies provide an important opportunity of our NZ personnel to further develop in skills and experience. The lack of this level of experienced resource within NZ was identified in the Canterbury Earthquake review.
On the 3rd August 2014 the British Columbia Forest Service made a formal request directly with the Department of Environment and Primary Industry (DEPI) in Victoria, Australia for fire fighting resources consisting of incident management and fire management personnel. As a partner to the agreement/relationship with the Canadians it is presumed that NZ (via the NRFA) would have been invited to contribute resources to make up the 81 personnel requested from Australasia.
No NZ resources were mobilised and deployed to Canada and the 81 complement was made up of Australian personnel only. They are currently in British Columbia assisting the Canadians in their hour of need.

OIA Questions:

1. Was NZ requested/invited to provide resources alongside those being organised and managed by the DEPI from throughout Australia?

2. If NZ resources were requested/invited:
a. Why (for the first time in 14 years) were NZ resources not offered via DEPI and deployed to Canada;
b. What was the basis of the decision to decline to provide NZ resources;
c. What was the level of consultation re this decision (ie within the Commission, Fire Service, NRFA, FRFANZ, Forest Owners, Rural Sector, etc); and
d. What advice was given to Australia (and hence Canada) for NZ declining to offer resources?

3. Does the Commission no longer consider that these International deployments to be of significant value to New Zealand (and our emergency services sector personnel) and that these opportunities to gain experience at this level should be given high priority?

4. Fire personnel and their agencies and organisations throughout NZ make a significant contribution every year to be available and maintain their training through NRFA programs. This has always been on the understanding that opportunities will arise to further develop their skills and capability from international deployments. What advice has been given to them regarding NZ not being included in the 2014 deployment to Canada?

5. Please provide copies of all relevant eMail, memorandum, letters, records of Teleconferences, etc pertaining to any discussions with the Australian via agencies with respect to the August deployment to British Columbia.

6. Please provide copies of all relevant eMail nor other memorandum advising the rural fire sector in NZ re the deployment to British Columbia.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Thompson
Lower Hutt

Dear Louise Robinson,

Thank you for the advice that Mr Lockyer will be responsible for a response to my OIA.

Please note however that my OIA request is directed to the Commission as the Board responsible for fire services in NZ and includes information relating to the Commission's position. I will therefore be expecting that the response (regardless of who drafts it)to represent the Commission.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Thompson

Mr Rob Pope
Director
Office of the Chief Executive
NZ Fire Service
Ref OIA Request dated 19th August 2014.

For the sake of clarity re your response on behalf of the Commission can you please advise/confirm my interpretation of your response and provide information requested but not provided in your response.

Q1 of my OIA: Was NZ requested/invited to provide resources alongside those being organised and managed by the DEPI from throughout Australia?

Your response on behalf of the Commission stated that a request “was not received”. You gave no response to the question as to whether an invitation was made (to be part of the deployment).
I understand that the process that is followed by the FFMG (incl NZ reps) is to first of all meet via Teleconference to discuss the situation and to agree on the collective response. This is then followed by a formal request from the agency requesting assistance.
Further then to your advice that there was “no request received”, please confirm that there was no advice given by the NZ Fire Service or the National Rural Fire Authority to DEPI or the FFMG at any time, in any conversation or at any meeting that NZ would not offer any assistance and/or would decline a request that would have resulted in no formal request being made.

Q4 of my OIA: Fire personnel and their agencies and organisations throughout NZ make a significant contribution every year to be available and maintain their training through NRFA programs. This has always been on the understanding that opportunities will arise to further develop their skills and capability from international deployments. What advice has been given to them regarding NZ not being included in the 2014 deployment to Canada?

On behalf of the Commission you have advised that as no request was made that there was then no need to “engage” with NZ rural fire agencies and personnel.

The memo to selected rural fire agencies and personnel dated 25th July is noted. Please note however that this memo pre dates the request from the Canadians and clearly states the advice from Australia that, at that time, there was no formal request for assistance from Australasia (apart from the deployment of two Aussie Liaison Officers).

a. Can you advise the relevance of this response from you with respect to Q4?

b. Q4 requested information on what advice was given to agencies and personnel regarding why NZ was not being included in the deployment to Canada. You are requested to address this specific question.

Q5 of my OIA: Please provide copies of all relevant eMail, memorandum, letters, records of Teleconferences, etc pertaining to any discussions with the Australian via agencies with respect to the August deployment to British Columbia.

I note the information you have provided in your OIA response. However I note that you have not included any records of the Teleconferences with the Australian agencies (DEPI/FFMG) relating to the Canadian deployment.

You are requested to advise regarding records of the Teleconferences relating to the Canadian deployment that NRFA or NZ Fire personnel participated in.

Thank you.
Alan Thompson
Lower Hutt

Dear Louise,

Could you please advise when I can expect to receive a response to my further request to provide the information I requested in my OIA relating to the records of the Teleconferences with the FFMG members. I also requested clarification regarding some of the information provided.
As I intend to take this matter further, I require the requested information asap and note that this was required to be within 20 working days from the date I lodged my request.

Thank you.

Alan Thompson
Lower Hutt

Dear Louise,

Thank you for the further information that you provided on 15th September advising that there was no advisories to Fire personnel or other agencies or organisations other than what you had previously provided to me. You have advised that:

• The Commission had not received a request to provide New Zealand Firefighting resources to British Columbia;

• The Commission would continue to honor our International arrangements;

• There were no other records or official information to provide in relation to the deployment in your possession; and

• NZ did not participate in any Teleconference meetings with DEPI or any other agency with respect to the deployment.

Under the same OIA thread I request the following further information:

1. As previously noted, the process that has been followed for past international forest fire deployments has been for a Teleconference meeting being called by the coordinating agency at which discussion is held and agreement reached as to any assistance request to the Australian/New Zealand Forest Fire Management Group (FFMG). Please advise why the NRFA did not participate in the Australia/NZ FFMG Teleconference meeting that was called for 1130 EST by DEPI, on Monday 4th August?

2. Please advise who made the decision not to participate in the 4th August Teleconference meeting, why this decision was made and what advice was given to DEPI as to why NZ would not be part of this Teleconference meeting to discuss the pending forest fire personal deployment to British Columbia, and why NZ did not offer to provide personal to a DEPI lead deployment to British Columbia?

3. You were further requested to provide copies of all documents relating to the request and provided a further assurance that this had be done. It is now evident that you have withheld the information referred to in 1 above. Please provide the reason this (and any other information) were withheld in my OIA request?

4. A further request is made for ALL documents, correspondence, eMails, etc pertaining to this matter and as twice previously requested?

Yours sincerely,

Alan Thompson
Lower Hutt

Dear Louise,

Could you please advise as to when I can expect a reply to the additional questions I submitted on 6th October.

These related to my OIA request around the decision not to deploy NZ Fire Fighters to Canada in August, the documents that were withheld from me and the apparent mis-information provided.

Yours sincerely,
Alan Thompson
Lower Hutt

The Commission
NZ Fire Service

Re: Follow Up questions relating to OIA Request

On the 6th of October I tabled a request for information that was withheld from me in respect my OIA request. I further sought an explanation as to why this information was withheld and why I was advised that it did not exist when this was known not to be the case.

On the 15th of October I requested advice as to when I could expect a reply to this further request. The Commission advised on the 16th that it would be “in due course “ but “as soon as possible “.

I further seek advice as to when I can expect a reply and trust that the Commission will comply with both the requirements and the intention of the OI Act.

Alan Thompson
Lower Hutt.
21 Oct 2014

23 October 2014

NZ Fire Service Commission

Official Information Request – Your response dated 23 October

I have noted that the Commission has continued to state that it was unaware of and did not receive an invitation to participate in any Teleconferences to respond to the request from Canada for fire resources.

The Commission has provided me with copies of the emails leading up to the deployment and subsequent emails providing SITREPs from Canada. All of these emails were addressed to the (then) Acting National Rural Fire Officer. These same notices were used as the basis of advising the NZ rural sector of the Canadian situation.

It is particularly significant that one eMail in particular sent to the Acting NRFO was not in the information provided. In my last request I provided the Commission with every opportunity to identify and release that email by providing a specific reference to it. The Commission has continued to withhold this email and continued to state that it does not exist. Significant in that emails before this one and after this one to the same Commission address have been released. Significant in that the one email that confirms the questions I am raising is the very one that is “missing” and its existence denied! Too much of a coincidence?

I would like to request once again this email be released and perhaps the following information will indicate to the Commission that I am aware of this email, its content and know that it was received by the Commission.

Date: Monday 4th August, 11:05am
From: Darrin McKenzie
To: Gary Lockyer
Subject: British Columbia – Resource request Teleconference

In providing me with this email I also request that the questions that I tabled on the 6th October with respect to the contents of this email be addressed. In particular I want to ensure that the rural sector is informed as to why (for the 1st time in 14 years) NZ did respond to an international request for assistance. This includes why we did not participate in the teleconference as requested, the reason advised to the FFFG members and who made this decision.

Subject to the Commission’s response re this matter I will consider laying a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman as it is evident that the email in question has been selectively and deliberately withheld by the Commission and in breach of the requirements of the OIA.

Alan Thompson
Lower Hutt

The NZ Fire Commission,

Thank you for the further information dated 31 October. This response included the document that I had sought in this extended OIA request and which the Commission had previously and repeatedly denied its existence.

I comment on the statements in the 31 Oct response:

1. You will appreciate that the claim that there was no “recollection” of having received this email lacks any credibility. As previously noted, emails before and after this significant email were released in response to my request. Only this particular email was not released and with the quite incredible explanation – “no recollection that it was received”!

As you will be aware, the matter as to whether the email was received, opened, deleted, etc could be resolved by examination of the Exchange Sever and Mail Marshall log files.

2. I am unsure as to the point of the Commission’s statement that “the email was not addressed to Mr Lockyer as the sole intended recipient as the email header I supplied suggested” or that it was “not addressed to the NRFA”.

a. I did not supply an email header. Given that the email was apparently being withheld, I simply tabled who sent the email and who representing the Commission was the addressee of the email along with the date and time. This was intended to assist the Commission to identify the missing correspondence and of course to not prolong the denials any further by indicating that I had seen the email.
b. I did not suggest that Mr Lockyer was the sole addressee of the email. I simply identified that he had been sent the message. I am unsure what the Commission considers significant about an email that Mr Lockyer is the sole addresses of versus one that is also sent to others.
c. The email was sent to Mr Lockyer in his role as the person representing the Commission (ie the NRFA) on the FFMG. This is identical to all of the other recipients which were all personal business email addresses. Conversely, this was not a personal message to “Gary Lockyer” at some private home email address.

3. I consider that the statements around the various agreements and that no request having been made on NZ to be totally disingenuous.

As you are well aware, the procedure as followed by the Canadians and the Australians was identical to all previous international deployments. The issuing of formal requests has always been preceded by teleconferences involving NZ as a member of FFMG. Once the response has been determined then the additional formal requests follow as required.

The reason that no request on NZ was made by Canada is that the NRFA did not participate in the Teleconference (as we were expected to).

I note that the Commission “strongly refutes” my suggestion that the email in question was withheld. If you review the OIA trail to date you will appreciate that the responses provided to me indicate otherwise. As already noted, the suggestion that one email should so mysteriously not be received is simply not credible. I remain unconvinced that information was not withheld from me and other information I have (and which has also not been released under my OIA request) confirms this. However, I see no further purpose at this time to request its formal release.

I will now address all of these matters to the wider rural fire sector and its key stakeholders looking for some positive outcomes of my OIA request. Accordingly I now consider that my OIA request re this matter to be complete.

Thank you for your assistance.

Alan Thompson
Lower Hutt