Hon PAULA BENNETT to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her statements?
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL to the Minister of Finance: What does the Treasury’s 2018 Investment Statement show about the state of the Government’s balance sheet?
Hon AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: How much capital expenditure is this Government forecast to spend in the period 2018-2022 compared to the previous Government over these same years, and how much of the difference is funded by an increase in debt?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister for Economic Development: Does this Government have a broad economic development strategy; if so, what is it?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: What announcements has the Government made about changes to how the Earthquake Commission operates?
Hon DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement on the Marae programme that “the problem right now is that corrections doesn’t have any flexibility…we’re in a real bind”?
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON to the Associate Minister for the Environment: Does she agree with the statements in the Annual Report of the Environmental Protection Authority, “we have our share of science deniers, who oppose fluoride, 1080, vaccinations, glyphosate, genetic modification, and much more” and “our Chief Scientist is prominent in emphasising the evidence, data, and science that underpins EPA decision making”; if so, why?
JENNY MARCROFT to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent announcements has he made pertaining to the Provincial Growth Fund?
SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Justice: Should maximum legislated sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime committed?
Hon NICKY WAGNER to the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration: Does she stand by all her answers to written questions?
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK to the Minister for the Environment: What does he think New Zealanders have to celebrate on World Water Day?
MELISSA LEE to the Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions in the Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media portfolio?
Background: We are in a period of history where natural disasters are increasing in both frequency and severity. They are having widespread impacts on communities, especially on vulnerable communities, those most affected who have the least ability to prepare or respond to a disaster. The ability to assemble and effectively manage Interagency Emergency Response Teams (IERTs) is critical to navigating the complexity and chaos found immediately following disasters. These teams play a crucial role in the multi-sectoral, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary, and inter-organisational response and are vital to ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable populations such as the young, aged, and socially and medically disadvantaged in disasters. Communication is key to the smooth operation of these teams. Most studies of the communication in IERTs during a disaster have been focussed at a macro-level of examining larger scale patterns and trends within organisations. Rarely found are micro-level analyses of interpersonal communication at the critical interfaces between collaborating agencies. This study set out to understand the experiences of those working at the interagency interfaces in an IERT set up by the Canterbury District Health Board to respond to the needs of the vulnerable people in the aftermath of the destructive earthquakes that hit Canterbury, New Zealand, in 2010-11. The aim of the study was to gain insights about the complexities of interpersonal communication (micro-level) involved in interagency response coordination and to generate an improved understanding into what stabilises the interagency communication interfaces between those agencies responding to a major disaster. Methods: A qualitative case study research design was employed to investigate how interagency communication interfaces were stabilised at the micro-level (“the case”) in the aftermath of the destructive earthquakes that hit Canterbury in 2010-11 (“the context”). Participant recruitment was undertaken by mapping which agencies were involved within the IERT and approaching representatives from each of these agencies. Data was collected via individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide and was based on the “Critical Incident Technique”. Subsequently, data was transcribed verbatim and subjected to inductive analysis. This was underpinned theoretically by Weick’s “Interpretive Approach” and supported by Nvivo qualitative data analysis software. Results: 19 participants were interviewed in this study. Out of the inductive analysis emerged two primary themes, each with several sub-factors. The first major theme was destabilising/disruptive factors of interagency communication with five sub-factors, a) conflicting role mandates, b) rigid command structures, c) disruption of established communication structures, d) lack of shared language and understanding, and e) situational awareness disruption. The second major theme stabilising/steadying factors in interagency communication had four sub-factors, a) the establishment of the IERT, b) emergent novel communication strategies, c) establishment of a liaison role and d) pre-existing networks and relationships. Finally, there was a third sub-level identified during inductive analysis, where sub-factors from both primary themes were noted to be uniquely interconnected by emergent “consequences” arising out of the disaster context. Finally, findings were synthesised into a conceptual “Model of Interagency Communication at the Micro-level” based on this case study of the Canterbury earthquake disaster response. Discussion: The three key dimensions of The People, The Connections and The Improvisations served as a framework for the discussion of what stabilises interagency communication interfaces in a major disaster. The People were key to stabilising the interagency interfaces through functioning as a flexible conduit, guiding and navigating communication at the interagency interfaces and improving situational awareness. The Connections provided the collective competence, shared decision-making and prior established relationships that stabilised the micro-level communication at interagency interfaces. And finally, The Improvisations i.e., novel ideas and inventiveness that emerge out of rapidly changing post-disaster environments, also contributed to stabilisation of micro-level communication flows across interagency interfaces in the disaster response. “Command and control” hierarchical structures do provide clear processes and structures for teams working in disasters to follow. However, improvisations and novel solutions are also needed and often emerge from first responders (who are best placed to assess the evolving needs in a disaster where there is a high degree of uncertainty). Conclusion: This study highlights the value of incorporating an interface perspective into any study that seeks to understand the processes of IERTs during disaster responses. It also strengthens the requirement for disaster management frameworks to formally plan for and to allow for the adaptive responsiveness of local teams on the ground, and legitimise and recognise the improvisations of those in the role of emergent boundary spanners in a disaster response. This needs to be in addition to existing formal disaster response mechanisms. This study provides a new conceptual model that can be used to guide future case studies exploring stability at the interfaces of other IERTs and highlights the centrality of communication in the experiences of members of teams in the aftermath of a disaster. Utilising these new perspectives on stabilising communication at the interagency interfaces in disaster responses will have practical implications in the future to better serve the needs of vulnerable people who are at greatest risk of adverse outcomes in a disaster.
