The NZPFU National Committee has been seeking guarantees from FENZ that it does not have any intention to reduce the scope or change the method of emergency responses currently undertaken, and is not attempting to change the structure in which firefighters are recruited and deployed.

A series of events have caused the NZPFU committee to question the transparency and intentions of FENZ, including how it intends to implement its “agreement in principle” of the additional 235 additional firefighters determined by a joint working party to address the repeated breaches of safe staffing and the ability to have sufficient firefighters to prevent excessive overtime required to keep fire appliances on the run to cover for planned leave, training, secondments and long-term injury and illness.

FENZ denies there is no current intention to downgrade response and undermine the current safe staffing systems.  They also claim, despite final Board sign off, that they are in the phase of developing a detailed implementation plan for the recruitment of the 235 additional firefighters (primarily to update the ratio of personnel for each firefighter position). 

But to date FENZ’s responses have not categorically ruled out changes to the current types and methods of response, or a desire to change some structures that govern the employment of career firefighters.

The National Committee continues to seek answers and documentation from FENZ, and we are yet to receive the categorical denials we need in order to assure our members that FENZ is not considering the reduction in types of response, or changes in response, that will be detrimental to the protection of the community and the safety of firefighters.

The National Committee has been seeking answers and corroborating documentation for the past 6 weeks.  We did not want to unnecessarily alarm members without giving FENZ every opportunity to respond to our concerns.  While FENZ has responded and provided some critical information, their assurances don’t go far enough to dispel our concerns. 

A series of events resulted in the Union’s grave concerns that there were moves afoot to remove protections in the collective employment agreement to provide FENZ with the option of changing the types and scope of response and the way career firefighters are employed and deployed.  These events were:

The Scottish Fire Rescue Service model

On the 5^th September in preparation of the first meeting of a new Future Operational Capability (FOC) Governance Group documents distributed to attendees (including NZPFU representatives) included a status report which recorded “international comparisons to provide operational insights” and to “conduct two deep dives for the international benchmarking with Scottish Fire and Rescue” which were to commence on 29 November 2024.

Prior to, and during the first Governance Group meeting the NZPFU requested why the Scottish Fire Rescue Service was selected for international benchmarking and raised our concerns on the relevance and suitability of the Scottish model given the significant changes over the last decade through funding cuts, changes to types and methods of response, the running of a series of rosters with a heavy reliance on retained firefighters and a reduction of 24/7 career stations, all resulting in a detrimental impact on the response and protection of the community.

From the FOC acting sponsor we were told benchmarking was not the right word but FENZ were looking at their recent operational capability reviews to consider relevant factors to be considered for the Future Operational Capability work.  This again rang alarm bells for the Union as the SFRS reviews had been about significant funding cuts, reducing or changing response and the increased reliance on retained staff over full-time career firefighters when in fact FENZ was supposed to be looking at the future with an additional 235 firefighters and had various working groups on the development and provision of specialist response.

FENZ bargaining claims

On the 5^th and 6^th September FENZ tabled and presented their bargaining claims some of which contained language that immediately raised red flags including references to “flexible deployment”, “best use of relieving staff” and “sustainable rostering practices”.  The explanations for the claims at the time FENZ tabled them in bargaining did not match the wording of the claims.  We were told the purpose of those claims were to set up a process for the implementation of the 235 additional firefighters. Additionally there was a claim to the change way firefighters and comms centre staff were paid with FENZ claiming compliance with statutory requirements cannot be achieved with the current methodology. 

These are all matters for negotiation and no changes have been agreed.

FENZ statements made in a select committee and the media

On the 18^th September FENZ Board Chair Rebecca Keoghan, CEO Kerry Gregory, DCE Office of the Chief Executive Bryan Dunn, DCE Finance and Business Operations and National Commander Russell Wood appeared before the Governance and Administration Select Committee to provide a briefing on FENZ’s spending plans and performance. The 2-hour briefing can be watched below or accessed here.

The media later highlighted the question from National Bay Of Plenty MP Tom Rutherford on how FENZ might change its response model and whether the Scottish model was being considered.  The NZ Herald story can be read here.

FENZ and the NZPFU were in bargaining that day and scheduled to bargain the following two days.  CEO Kerry Gregory rang me (NZPFU National Secretary) on the evening of the 18^th concerned that the media story would not provide an accurate or full picture of what was said, and asked us to view the whole select committee briefing to understand the full context.  He later followed up by email stating:

“Scotland seems to be topical at the moment” and that they had been asked “whether we would apply the Scotland model of response to false alarms in NZ which since July last year was not to respond unless a confirmed fire was advised.  We responded that it was not something we would consider in NZ without first doing thorough analysis to understand how it would work in a NZ context and the impacts it would have on our operations. We confirmed it was not something we are doing in the short term. You will also note from the article, the comments from our Minister that she “is not comfortable with that, we do actually want our emergency services to respond to people in need”. Not sending a response to false alarms like Scotland is not something we are currently considering and I suggest you connect with Russell or put on the agenda when you next meet to give you an update on any work underway to address false alarms.”

Impact on bargaining

The above events indicated to the National Committee that there could be an undisclosed plan that impacted directly on the bargaining due to FENZ’s claims that could directly impact on rosters, changes in categories or uses of relieving staff, and changes to wage payments, to provide FENZ with the “flexibility” it may need to change the way in which career firefighters were employed and deployed.  Members will remember that issues of “good faith” and honesty had already been an issue in preparation of bargaining and on other issues prior to bargaining.  

On the morning of the 19^th September 2024 the NZPFU National Committee notified FENZ that we could not continue to bargain until FENZ had provided assurances and the relevant corroborating documentation that there was no attempt by FENZ to use bargaining to weaken current protections in the collective employment agreement to introduce the alter structures to enable different firefighters arrangements.  We were greatly concerned their claims were a trojan horse for an undisclosed plan.

CEO Kerry Gregory, National Commander Russell Wood met with the bargaining teams that week and Deputy National Commander Steph Rotorangi met with the teams upon her return from leave. There has also been various email communications since.  After those meetings the NZPFU agreed to return to bargaining on the basis that we would receive information and documents as requested.

The key points to come out of the NZPFU National Committee pressing for answers and assurances through those discussions and communications are:  

• FENZ has undertaken a financial benchmarking comparison with the Scottish Fire Rescue Service with the final report dated June 2024.  We were informed this financial benchmarking was done separate to, and unrelated to the Future Operating Capability work and that is why the explanations of work comparing the SFRS were different.  We were told that the purpose was to ascertain whether FENZ was appropriately funded.  On Monday we were provided with those reports with notification that FENZ intends to release the report on its website this week.  The accompanying explanation from the National Commander included:

“The purpose of the work was to develop a benchmark which would provide an evidence base for comparison against similar or composite jurisdictions and organisations in terms of expenditure. This was not an Operational Benchmarking activity. The approach taken in identifying options for the financial benchmarking exercise was to isolate jurisdictions of similar population size (whether in full or regional providers) that also have similar legislative requirements in execution of their services.”

• FENZ is looking at other models across the world for future capability but to date has not been able to provide what models or agencies will be considered.

• Fiscal pressures include the 2.2% levy increase for 2025 reduced down from the requested 5.2% and the Minister’s expectation of $60 million savings by the end of a 3-year period to provide a reserve for significant unexpected costs or under-collection of the levy.

• That without any consultation or notification to the NZPFU FENZ had changed its approach to the categorising of staff to Frontline (those who directly deliver services to the public and industry), Frontline Enabler (those who directly support frontline functions) and Corporate Support (those who maintain business operations that allow the organisation to function. These new categories were used for the financial benchmarking against the Scottish agency.

FENZ provided the following (not exhaustive) summary of the breakdown of roles in each category:
- Frontline (77%): Career FFs, ComCen operators/Shift Managers and Ops Managers, Region Managers, District Managers, Group Managers, Community Risk Managers, Risk Reduction and Community Readiness & Recovery Senior Advisors and Advisors, USAR personnel, VSOs, Specialist roles (Wildfire, Fire Engineers, Fire Investigators), Regulatory & Compliance roles, Pou Takawaenga.
- Frontline Enabler (18%): Planning and Performance Managers, Intelligence Officers, National Response Capability Advisors, National RR and CRR roles, BOMs, Operational Efficiency & Readiness roles, People Support roles, Safety, health & wellbeing roles, national Volunteerism support, Comms and Engagement roles, LAC support roles, Training, Property, Fleet, Equipment/Logistics roles, Portfolio support roles for frontline projects.
- Corporate Support (5%): Legal, Risk & Assurance, Finance, Procurement, Policy, Strategy, Planning & performance, Information Requests, Board & Ministerials, ICT, ELT, Data and Analytics, National Business Operations, People Branch support roles such as Remuneration, Investment & Portfolio

• That there is still an “in principle” agreement for the 235 additional firefighters and there are no plans for “wholesale changes to rostering” but FENZ’s bargaining claims were to have flexibility to ensure the additional staffing would not result in having to call firefighters back when they had 5 on a crew.

• That the claims to change the pay structure was completely unrelated and was purely to ensure legal compliance.

• That if the wording in FENZ documentation including the claims were imprecise then FENZ would take that on the chin and try and ensure it did not re-occur.

The NZPFU is not satisfied. 

While FENZ has stated the FENZ Scottish Fire Rescue Service Financial Benchmarking Final Report was to ascertain whether FENZ was appropriately funded, we dispute that the SFRS was the appropriate comparison given the significant differences in staffing types, rosters, response types/methods.  It is also likely in the current political context this report could be used for purposes other than bids for increase in funding including proposals detrimental to safe systems of work and response.  

The new classifications of Frontline/Frontline Enabler and Corporate Support were used as the basis for comparisons with the Scottish Fire Rescue model. Given the above list of positions in those categories we believe it has been a deliberate change to ensure FENZ records a lower corporate support expenditure than what it really is.  We continue to be concerned that these new classifications, and the roles FENZ has unilaterally determined fall within them, may be used to protect those that are not genuinely working in positions that respond and work to protect the community.  By doing FENZ would sacrifice our membership whose roles genuinely are frontline roles as they respond to, and are integral to, emergency response and protecting the community.    

While FENZ denies any “wholesale” changes to rosters and claims the wording of claims did not accurately reflect the intentions, they will not give a categorical denial they are seeking changes to rosters and are considering changes to types and methods of response, or will do so in the near future.  

There is also requested information and documentation yet to be received.

The NZPFU assures the membership that as always the National Committee is on high-alert to changes that will diminish the protection of the community through reduced response and attacks on safe systems of work.

We will continue to push for the implementation of the additional 235 additional firefighters over 5 years without any downgrading of current staffing arrangements. 

At this stage we will remain engaged with the Future Operational Capability (FOC) project to ensure there is appropriate comparative research and evidence-based discussions and considerations.

We will continue to challenge the Frontline/Frontline Enabler and Corporate Support classifications and the roles to ensure any classification is properly determined, that only the relevant positions/roles are within the appropriate classifications, and work to prevent this exercised being used for outcomes that will detrimentally affect the safety of the community through changes to the level and scope of emergency response and safe systems of work.

In unity, 
National Secretary Wattie Watson on behalf of the National Committee.

Share This: