The Public Service Association (PSA) earlier this month was urging the government to step in to stop Fire and Emergency’s (FENZ) proposal “to cut almost 170 jobs”.
FENZ was circulating its restructure proposal to its staff at that time but told RNZ it would not release it publicly.
That opened the way for the PSA to claim the proposal would decimate the agency’s front line support staff and undermine firefighting “in a bid to save $70m a year”.
A few paragraphs further down the same RNZ report, Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden was quoted as saying she had asked Fire and Emergency to identify $60 million in savings over the current levy period to find more efficient ways to deliver services.
She was not forthcoming enough to mention that figure or any other figure during Question Time in Parliament yesterday.
Nor (alas) did Labour’s Lemauga Lydia Sosene press for the correct figure, after the Minister rejected the number she used.
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—MÄngere) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she confident that Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s proposal to cut up to $70 million of spending a year will not impact on the safety of New Zealanders or firefighters; if so, why?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is not proposing to cut $70 million of spending per year.
Van Velden had the opportunity right there to put transparency before petty politicking and enlighten Sosene about what FENZ does propose or is expected to lop from its spending.
Sosene, similarly, had the opportunity to ask for the correct figure.
But no. The follow-up question was –
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will cutting more than 140 jobs keep New Zealanders safe, when these jobs include fire-prevention staff, specialist wildfire roles, and key support staff for firefighters?
Van Velden addressed the question without challenging the number this time.
Whether she answered it is disputable.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Fire and Emergency proposal to undertake a restructure, I believe, is a valuable exercise. If you look at some of the quotes that have come from the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU), there have been concerns about mismanagement, and I take a direct quote here, and it says, “The failure to focus on the purpose of the organisation—to preserve life and property through prevention and emergency response and instead the focus [on] funds on a bloated management structure focused on corporate culture.” I tend to agree. Where we can find efficiencies, we must find efficiencies for the benefit of all of the people in New Zealand who pay levies that directly fund Fire and Emergency New Zealand. But it is also the case that we have to have more respect than has been in the past for finding these efficiencies.
Hmm. Van Velden tends to agree there has been a failure to focus on the preservation of life and property through FENZ’s prevention and emergency response. Instead funding has gone into a bloated management structure focused on corporate culture.
Sosene pressed for more information on safety.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will cutting the Fire and Emergency New Zealand budget keep firefighters safe, at a time when firefighters are telling her they already don’t have the equipment and support they need?
The bloated bureaucracy apparently has satisfied van Velden that the bloat will be eradicated, but not the fire-firefighting.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I am absolutely assured by Fire and Emergency that the safety of personnel is their utmost priority. Our Fire and Emergency service does not work without safe firefighters, professional and volunteer. But I’d also make the point that there are no proposed cuts to front-line firefighters—those are essential to New Zealanders’ safety around the community. But where we can find any bloating in the back-office functions, it is important to respect the money that is directly paid by Kiwis through levies.
But whoa. The firefighters might not be so relaxed.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Is the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union correct that these roles are critical to ensuring firefighters have access to the training and support they need to respond to emergencies properly to keep New Zealanders safe?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I believe the NZPFU is correct when, once again I quote, they said, “instead the focus [on] funds on a bloated management structure focused on corporate culture.” has been too high. And I am surprised that firefighters would not want to have a more efficient service, I think we would all back that across this country, whether we are in the firefighting service, whether we’re here in Parliament, or whether we are community members wanting to make sure that the trucks come out to keep us safe in our time of need. It’s important that we have a good, efficient service, that is what Fire and Emergency are undertaking. But I’d also just note the restructure is currently a proposal.
According to the aforementioned RNZ report, Fire and Emergency NZ said the proposals in the restructure would affect around 700 roles across the organisation, resulting in the net loss of around 140 positions.
Chief Executive Kerry Gregory said no frontline firefighter positions were impacted, although some supporting functions might change.
“This proposal is about ensuring we are best positioned to deliver a modern and responsive emergency service,” Gregory said.
“The primary focus is to provide a trusted service that keeps New Zealanders safe. Our dedicated team does an amazing job looking after our communities and this proposal is about ensuring we are best positioned to continue doing that.”
According to the PSA, 46 of the roles proposed to be cut were in the Operational Response branch, which were “directly supporting firefighters”.
“These workers do critical work like ensuring the urgent coordination of resources for fires and other emergencies.”
The union said another 45 roles from the Prevention branch, which aimed to reduce risk and harm before emergencies occurred, were also cut. That included four wildfire specialists.
Cost-cutting was forced on FENZ after the Government refused a request to increase a levy from insurance premiums. According to the PSA, 95% of the organisation’s revenue came from the levy.
The Internal Affairs Department oversees FENZ.
Brooke van Velden told RNZ she had been clear from day one about her expectations around spending and providing value for the New Zealanders who fund the services through insurance levies.
FENZ had to spend “wisely” and be careful with the money they got from households and businesses.
“I have asked Fire and Emergency to identify $60 million in savings over the current levy period to find more efficient ways to deliver services.”
That target represented a commitment to operational efficiency while maintaining front-line emergency response capabilities nationwide, she said.
Levy-payers have cause to be pleased.
The fire-fighters? Not so much.
A few paragraphs further down the same RNZ report, Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden was quoted as saying she had asked Fire and Emergency to identify $60 million in savings over the current levy period to find more efficient ways to deliver services.
She was not forthcoming enough to mention that figure or any other figure during Question Time in Parliament yesterday.
Nor (alas) did Labour’s Lemauga Lydia Sosene press for the correct figure, after the Minister rejected the number she used.
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—MÄngere) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she confident that Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s proposal to cut up to $70 million of spending a year will not impact on the safety of New Zealanders or firefighters; if so, why?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) is not proposing to cut $70 million of spending per year.
Van Velden had the opportunity right there to put transparency before petty politicking and enlighten Sosene about what FENZ does propose or is expected to lop from its spending.
Sosene, similarly, had the opportunity to ask for the correct figure.
But no. The follow-up question was –
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will cutting more than 140 jobs keep New Zealanders safe, when these jobs include fire-prevention staff, specialist wildfire roles, and key support staff for firefighters?
Van Velden addressed the question without challenging the number this time.
Whether she answered it is disputable.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Fire and Emergency proposal to undertake a restructure, I believe, is a valuable exercise. If you look at some of the quotes that have come from the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU), there have been concerns about mismanagement, and I take a direct quote here, and it says, “The failure to focus on the purpose of the organisation—to preserve life and property through prevention and emergency response and instead the focus [on] funds on a bloated management structure focused on corporate culture.” I tend to agree. Where we can find efficiencies, we must find efficiencies for the benefit of all of the people in New Zealand who pay levies that directly fund Fire and Emergency New Zealand. But it is also the case that we have to have more respect than has been in the past for finding these efficiencies.
Hmm. Van Velden tends to agree there has been a failure to focus on the preservation of life and property through FENZ’s prevention and emergency response. Instead funding has gone into a bloated management structure focused on corporate culture.
Sosene pressed for more information on safety.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How will cutting the Fire and Emergency New Zealand budget keep firefighters safe, at a time when firefighters are telling her they already don’t have the equipment and support they need?
The bloated bureaucracy apparently has satisfied van Velden that the bloat will be eradicated, but not the fire-firefighting.
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I am absolutely assured by Fire and Emergency that the safety of personnel is their utmost priority. Our Fire and Emergency service does not work without safe firefighters, professional and volunteer. But I’d also make the point that there are no proposed cuts to front-line firefighters—those are essential to New Zealanders’ safety around the community. But where we can find any bloating in the back-office functions, it is important to respect the money that is directly paid by Kiwis through levies.
But whoa. The firefighters might not be so relaxed.
Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Is the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union correct that these roles are critical to ensuring firefighters have access to the training and support they need to respond to emergencies properly to keep New Zealanders safe?
Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I believe the NZPFU is correct when, once again I quote, they said, “instead the focus [on] funds on a bloated management structure focused on corporate culture.” has been too high. And I am surprised that firefighters would not want to have a more efficient service, I think we would all back that across this country, whether we are in the firefighting service, whether we’re here in Parliament, or whether we are community members wanting to make sure that the trucks come out to keep us safe in our time of need. It’s important that we have a good, efficient service, that is what Fire and Emergency are undertaking. But I’d also just note the restructure is currently a proposal.
According to the aforementioned RNZ report, Fire and Emergency NZ said the proposals in the restructure would affect around 700 roles across the organisation, resulting in the net loss of around 140 positions.
Chief Executive Kerry Gregory said no frontline firefighter positions were impacted, although some supporting functions might change.
“This proposal is about ensuring we are best positioned to deliver a modern and responsive emergency service,” Gregory said.
“The primary focus is to provide a trusted service that keeps New Zealanders safe. Our dedicated team does an amazing job looking after our communities and this proposal is about ensuring we are best positioned to continue doing that.”
According to the PSA, 46 of the roles proposed to be cut were in the Operational Response branch, which were “directly supporting firefighters”.
“These workers do critical work like ensuring the urgent coordination of resources for fires and other emergencies.”
The union said another 45 roles from the Prevention branch, which aimed to reduce risk and harm before emergencies occurred, were also cut. That included four wildfire specialists.
Cost-cutting was forced on FENZ after the Government refused a request to increase a levy from insurance premiums. According to the PSA, 95% of the organisation’s revenue came from the levy.
The Internal Affairs Department oversees FENZ.
Brooke van Velden told RNZ she had been clear from day one about her expectations around spending and providing value for the New Zealanders who fund the services through insurance levies.
FENZ had to spend “wisely” and be careful with the money they got from households and businesses.
“I have asked Fire and Emergency to identify $60 million in savings over the current levy period to find more efficient ways to deliver services.”
That target represented a commitment to operational efficiency while maintaining front-line emergency response capabilities nationwide, she said.
Levy-payers have cause to be pleased.
The fire-fighters? Not so much.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
1 comment:
Why has the second covid commissioner resigned from a cushy lucrative role Brooke?
With the countless unnecessary road cones Kiwis encounter every day, how have you removed ZERO from our streets Brooke?
And i haven't once heard you mention we pay handsomely for those expensive road cones Brooke.
Reducing Kiwis holiday pay doesn't help them pay for the unbelievably expensive road cones amd the debtbleft from the covid fraud Brooke.
Come on Mr Luxon. How can you have confidence the disastrous Minister Van Velden isn't turning FENZ into another of her long list of political failures?
Van Velden is costing Kiwis taxpayers any chance of recouping the $66b covid fraud money you keep taunting Hipkins with.
Did you really enter politics to cover up the thieving Aussie cartels and the covid fraudsters Mr Luxon?
Post a Comment