The integrity of the entire public service is under scrutiny after revelations about the close relationship between a private security firm Thompson and Clark and the SIS and the Ministry for Primary Industries. In March, the State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes ordered an investigation after it was revealed the firm spied on Canterbury earthquake claimants for Southern Response. That was was further widened to include the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment which has been accused by Greenpeace of using the company to spy on them. On Tuesday as a result of RNZ inquiries, Mr Hughes widened the investigation even further to cover all government department and scores of other public sector agencies such as District Health Boards. State Services Minister Chris Hipkins is demanding answers. The SIS emails show a staff member and one of the Thompson and Clark directors were old friends who met regularly. Also an OIA request from RNZ News has triggered the uncovering of what the Ministry for Primary Industries describes as potentially serious misconduct by several former staff members. Joining us to explain the details are the reporters who have been doing this digging, Checkpoint's Zac Fleming and Conan Young. Thompson and Clark's Gavin Clark declined to come on Morning Report but in an email said Thompson and Clark is willing to cooperate fully with the SSC and will await the investigation to take its natural course.
MARAMA DAVIDSON to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Will he commit to ensuring that the 800 tenancies terminated or otherwise affected by Housing New Zealand’s previous approach to meth testing receive compensation that genuinely reflects the level of harm done, and takes account of both direct costs and emotional distress? Hon JUDITH COLLINS to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Is it acceptable for Housing New Zealand tenants to smoke methamphetamine in Housing New Zealand houses? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the statements, actions, and policies of the Government in relation to the New Zealand economy? RINO TIRIKATENE to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: What recent announcements has he made on the scope of his new portfolio? Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Minister of State Services: What are the dates and contents of all work-related electronic communications between former Minister Hon Clare Curran and the Prime Minister since the decision in Cabinet last year “that the CTO be appointed by, and accountable to, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Government Digital Services and Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media”? Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL to the Minister of Finance: What is his reaction to the Independent Tax Working Group’s interim report released today? Hon NIKKI KAYE to the Minister of Education: How many communications has she received from teachers or principals in the last three days regarding teacher shortages, relief teacher issues, and increases in class sizes, and is she confident there will be no more primary teacher strikes this year? Hon NATHAN GUY to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many inbound passengers arrived at Auckland International Airport yesterday between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m., and how many dog detector teams worked on the Green Lane at this time? TAMATI COFFEY to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Government taking to ensure Housing New Zealand is a compassionate landlord focused on tenant well-being? STUART SMITH to the Minister for Courts: Is he confident that the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal will comply with all requirements of the rule of law? SIMEON BROWN to the Minister of Health: When did the Expert Advisory Committee on drugs give its advice that synthetic cannabinoids AMB-FUBINACA and 5F-ADB be scheduled as Class A controlled drugs, and what action has he taken on this advice? ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What measures has the Government announced to protect the public from unscrupulous wheel-clamping practices?
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.
