ࡱ> RTOPQ!` bjbj\\ E>>@*\\\L8 T($|46'"hPP"r(!!!!!!!$#h%^! |_"||! &!<<<|  !<|!<<  . D c轜8,6z ,!0'"rU&dVU&l. U& . Lxz<so !!'"||||666\ 666 D$0    REVIEW of the NEW ZEALAND SEARCH AND RESCUE SECRETARIAT Brian Murray Ll.M (Hons) B.A Fellow NZIM Prepared for the New Zealand Search and Rescue Council December 2006 Review of New Zealand Search and Rescue Secretariat Contents Terms of Reference Executive Summary Part 1 General 1.1 Background to the review 1.2 Experience to date 1.3 Observations 1.4 Developments in Search and Rescue 1.5 Consultation Part 2 International approaches 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Canada 2.3 Applicability to New Zealand Part 3 NZ SAR Secretariat the future 3.1 Roles, functions and outputs 3.2 Organisational, accountability and communication 3.3 Size and structure 3.4 Funding 3.5 Administration Part 4 Recommendations Appendices 1. Cabinet paper and minute 2. SAR Structures: Australia, United States, United Kingdom 3. Canadian National SAR Secretariat: Organisational Structure 4. Consultation Terms of reference The following terms of reference for the review were set by the New Zealand Search and Rescue Council: Review the roles, functions and outputs of the NZSAR Secretariat and make recommendations on what they should be and how they may be defined. Review the organisational, accountability and communication arrangements of the NZSAR Secretariat and make relevant recommendations on how these might be improved, including consultative procedures with all participants in NZSAR. Review the size of the NZSAR Secretariat and make recommendations as to its appropriate future size and structure. Consider factors such as workload, international and domestic benchmarks, continuity, fiscal limitations and depth. Review the funding arrangements for the NZSAR Secretariat and make recommendations intended to create stable and sustainable fiscal provision. Review the NZSAR Secretariats administrative arrangements and recommend any changes to improve them. The NZSAR Council and its Consultative Committee are outside the scope of the review. Executive Summary 1. There is strong support within stakeholders for the existing SAR governance framework. It has provided voluntary agencies with an input into the sectors strategic direction and encouraged closer relationships between organisations in the sector. Stakeholders have a positive view of the Secretariat. 2. The Canadian approach, with its whole-of-sector focus, continues to be an appropriate model for the Secretariat. Much greater integration of government and voluntary agencies in the sector would need to occur before an alternative model could be adopted. 3. There is an element of ambiguity involved in the Secretariat. All parties see it as being accountable to the SAR Council as the body representative of the sector. However, this is at variance with the formal accountability requirements which focus on the Ministry of Transport, giving rise to concerns that the effectiveness of the Secretariat may be inhibited. A change in the organisational basis is not justified but measures should be instituted to improve role definition. The Secretariat should be provided with terms of reference covering its role, functions and outputs. The outputs required should include matters such as an annual report where the Secretariat can be seen as accounting to the Council. Generally, the Secretariat should operate under a distinctive NZSAR brand. 4. The priorities for the work programme are the acceleration of the implementation of the strategic plan and the development of a community of interest among SAR stakeholders. The Secretariats funding should be increased by $250,000 pa commencing on 1 July 2007 to provide for the engagement of a second person with analytical and project planning skills ($150,000), a budget for implementing projects under the strategic plan ($50,000) and an enhanced communications plan ($50,000). 5. The existing contributory funding arrangement should be replaced with an appropriation in Vote Transport. 6. Specific recommendations are set out in Part 4. Part 1 General 1.1 Background to the review 1. The current SAR governance structure was approved by Cabinet in February 2003. It comprises of a SAR Council supported by a Secretariat (modeled on the Canadian National SAR Secretariat) and advised by a Consultative Committee of sector stakeholders. The purpose of the change was to achieve a more coherent strategic direction in search and rescue than was possible under the previous arrangements. The Cabinet minute and paper on which the decisions were taken are included in appendix 1. 2. A benefit of the system proposed was its ability to be introduced quickly, without the need for legislation or an appropriation. It was accepted, however, that there would need to be an evaluation of the Secretariat after an initial period before longer term decisions could be taken. 3. In respect of its functions, Cabinet decided that these should be reviewed after two years of operation. On organisational and funding arrangements, the paper stated: On the assumption that the Secretariat will prove successful and be retained beyond the initial implementation phase, a separate proposal will be developed for the Crown to provide dedicated funding for the Secretariat as a permanent body. 4. In addition to meaning enduring or on-going, permanent might be interpreted as necessarily implying separate or independent. Whether this was intended or not, this review proceeds on the basis that the following are all options for the Secretariat: Disestablishment. It may be that the functions that need to be performed can be incorporated into one of the government agencies. Continuation, more or less, in its current form. Reconstitution in a different form. 1.2 Experience to date 5. The Secretariat has operated since July 2003 with a full time Manager supported administratively by the Ministry of Transport (the Ministry). A hiatus occurred between July and December 2005 between the departure of the first Manager and the appointment of the current one, although temporary assistance was used to continue work on developing strategic funding proposals during that period. 6. The Secretariat has contributed significantly to the following developments. Consultative Committee. The Secretariat has been instrumental in establishing this and securing the participation of stakeholders in it. There is now a forum for issues of importance to the voluntary sector to be discussed and their input into policy and strategy development obtained. Communications between the participating organisations has improved as a result. The Manager chairs the Committee. Strategic Plan. A strategic planning process was completed successfully, again with the participation of key stakeholders. The plan, adopted by the Council in July 2004, establishes the mission and vision and the other elements of a strategy for the sector. For the first time, a set of goals and objectives, together with a priortised set of projects to attain them, has been identified and agreed. A coherent strategic direction within an agreed framework, a major aim of the new structure, has been articulated. Risk Analysis. A major risk analysis was conducted, leading to the identification of key risks requiring mitigation. The Classification System. The basis upon which responsibility for SAR incidents is allocated between government agencies has been reviewed in the light of problems encountered. Strategic Funding Proposals. Different options for implementing the revised classification have been developed for submission to Cabinet. These propose significant increases in government funding of the sector. Reviews. The Secretariat has managed the conduct of two major inquiries. The first was the Bowdler report in 2004 on the sinking of the Time Out. This led to the formation of the Rescue Co-ordination Centre (RCCNZ) co-located with the Marine Operations Centre. The second was the Fitzharris report into the crash of helicopter ZK-HTF in November 2005. Prevention. The Secretariat has managed the development and implementation of a campaign to inform target audiences of the phasing out of the analogue emergency locator beacon system and encourage early changeover to digitally-based 406 mHz beacons. 1.3 Observations 7. Some broad observations can be made about how the experience to date compares to the original concept of the Secretariat canvassed in Cabinet paper. Council support. The workload (organising meetings, preparing agenda material, distributing minutes) has been within the capacity of the Secretariat to handle adequately. Policy advice and development. The major policy issues considered since 2003 have originated from outside the Secretariat, eg, the establishment of RCCNZ (Bowdler), the classification review (the Ministry), resource proposals (Maritime NZ) and the ZK-HTF recommendations (Fitzharris). If not, perhaps, the principal instigator of changes, the Secretariat has nonetheless played a significant role in the development and prosecution of the policy proposals. The work on the strategic funding proposals has absorbed a large proportion of the Secretariats time. Co-ordination of activities to support the provision of SAR. The development of the strategic plan has been a major achievement but implementation and monitoring of it has been limited, as has progress toward the establishment, validation and monitoring of national standards, procedures, preventative programmes, training, agreements and documentation relevant to all participants in New Zealand SAR. Co-ordination among all the elements of the SAR community. The most significant developments have been the formation of the Consultative Committee and the liaison required with government agencies over the manner in which the new classification regime is to be implemented. General. The Secretariats work programme has been a mixture of the policy/strategic and operational. The involvement in the latter (managing the reviews and the beacons campaign) has probably been greater than would have been envisaged initially. 8. The main constraint on higher output has been lack of human resources rather than money or skills. 1.4 Developments in Search and Rescue 9. The current system has its origins in the 2001 report of the Maritime Patrol Review which identified the inadequacy of the arrangements in place at that time to deal with governance and strategic co-ordination from a national perspective. There have been significant developments since that time. 10. The new governance system has been bedded in and enjoys the support of stakeholders generally. The means of achieving better co-ordination and focus have been instituted. 11. The principal voluntary organisations involved in SAR, the NZ Coastguard and NZ LandSAR, have made changes to both their structure and the way they operate. They are more cohesive bodies than they were five years ago. 12. NZ Defence Force capability is progressively being increased as assets under the Project Protector programme come on stream. 13. The availability of adequate resources remains a major issue for the voluntary agencies, but this issue is addressed to a significant degree in the strategic funding proposals. 14. The SAR sector has developed and, potentially, is on the cusp of significant improvement. This needs to be taken into account in approaching how the Secretariat should be structured and resourced over a timeframe of the next three to five years. 1.5 Consultation 15. The following were the main themes to emerge from the consultation undertaken for the review. 16. There is strong support for the existing governance model. It is seen to be appropriate for the NZ environment and a vast improvement over the previous arrangements. It has provided voluntary agencies with a voice on strategy and the contact with other organisations has fostered better relationships. 17. In respect of the Secretariat, the sector has a favourable view of its method of operating and its achievements. However, there is frustration over the rate at which the implementation of the strategic funding proposals has progressed. There is also concern over the failure to make progress on a broader front with the strategic plan, something attributable to the lack of resources available to the Secretariat. 18. The threat to the independence of the Secretariat was also raised. Broadly stated, the Secretariat is viewed as needing to work in the interests of the sector as a whole not just the government or the Ministry. The possibility of the Secretariat being captured was raised, although no party believes this to be an actual problem currently. Part 2 International Approaches 2.1 Introduction 19. New Zealand shares the same obligation to provide a national SAR service as other the countries that have ratified the relevant conventions. New Zealand is possibly more dependent on voluntary service providers than the United Kingdom, Canada or the United States but even these countries rely substantially on voluntary organisations to deliver services. All the countries share the same need to co-ordinate effort and obtain the best value for expenditure; there is a marked similarity in the way each country expresses the goals it wants to achieve through its SAR governance system. 20. Despite the similarities, different approaches are taken to achieving those goals. Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States maintain structures that facilitate communication and co-operation between government SAR providers at a high level, but rely on the goodwill of the participants for implementation. Also, the relationships with voluntary providers are left to the relevant government agency to manage. Information on the SAR governance in these countries appears in appendix 2. 21. In Canada, by contrast, there is a planning and evaluation framework aimed at integrating activity across agencies, backed by dedicated resources. Given that our approach to the Secretariat was expressed as being based on the Canadian model, the latter warrants examination. 2.2 Canada 22. The distinctive features of the Canadian system include: Strategic planning is undertaken at the sector level, not just at agency level. Government and non government agencies participate in developing the National SAR Programme. Strategic objectives, directions and pathways are developed and government agencies are expected to develop their individual plans within this framework. The priorities identified in the 2006 plan include: Public education and awareness Data management SAR volunteer community Training standards and exercises Technology SAR partnership with the Public Safety Community There is dedicated funding of new developments via the New Initiatives Fund (C$8.1m pa). A strong emphasis is placed on building relationships between SAR groups and sharing information. Accountability system. The Canadian National SAR Secretariat (CNSS) is headed by an Executive Director who is responsible to the National Defence Minister, the lead SAR Minister. The Director chairs the Inter-departmental Committee on SAR, the equivalent of our SAR Council. 23. The following indicates the scope and scale of the Canadian National SAR Secretariat. Its organisational chart appears in appendix 3. The total expenditure involved exceeds C$11m pa. FunctionsStaffOperating budget C$Policy and reviewPolicy Strategic planning Audit and evaluation Accountability documents Research Prevention Multi jurisdictional exercises  6 295,000Co-ordinationNew Initiatives Fund Business planning Specific responsibilities beacons registry, COSPAS/SARSAT. 8 376,000CommunicationsEvents and awards SARSCENE workshop Magazine Public affairs Website 4 236,000Finance and support 6 249,000Executive Director 1 80,000Total 25 1,236,000 2.3 Applicability to NZ 24. The extent to which Canada pursues horizontal SAR co-ordination is impressive. It applies greater resources to the task than the other countries considered in this review. It may be a necessary reaction to a complex environment or it may reflect a cultural value of concern for the distressed. However, proving empirically the superiority of the Canadian approach over that of other countries, in terms of both lives saved and value for money, would be difficult if not impossible. 25. The issue is what best fits New Zealands circumstances. The evidence to date shows that the current approach is yielding benefits and, therefore, the aim should be for the Secretariat to continue to develop along the lines of Canadian model. This should, however, be achieved organically. Even if it were feasible, fiscally and otherwise, it would not be sensible to replicate the Canadian system into the current New Zealand environment. It would not be credible to build up the policy centre while the operational agencies both government and voluntary may be under resource pressure. 26. The possibility of changing to a different model, depending on how the sector develops, should also be kept in mind. It is possible that with greater government funding, closer relationships will develop between Maritime NZ and NZ Coastguard, and between NZ Police and NZ LandSAR, making a model along UK lines, a feasible option. Part 3 NZ SAR Secretariat the future 27. This section addresses the specific terms of reference in light of the experience since inception and the setting expected over the next 3 to 5 years. 3.1 Roles, functions and outputs 3.1.1 Role 28. The fundamental purpose of the Secretariat, the reason it exists, is to support the Council fulfil its role. The position is unchanged from 2003 when the Secretariats role was articulated in the following way. A permanent secretariat will provide dedicated expertise to support the Council and help implement ideas that emerge from the Council and the Consultative Committee. Otherwise the Council would have to rely on participant agencies to provide support which might not be readily available or of the standard necessary. The operative support of a well- resourced secretariat is seen as essential to reinforce the linkage between the Councils high level governance role and the actions necessary to translate policy and principle into action. 29. The Council does not have formal terms of reference but it is clear that it is responsible for providing strategic policy advice to government and strong strategic co-ordination for all search and rescue in New Zealand. 30. In regard to the former, Ministers need to be well advised on the means of improving SAR capability, effectiveness and co-operation. The Secretariat can contribute in the area both in substance, as a source of ideas and information about matters such as developments internationally, and as the manager of the policy formation process. However, the Secretariat is not the only source of policy advice; the Council can obtain it from its constituent members and has done so on several occasions. The problem foreseen in being reliant on the participant agencies referred to in the Cabinet paper has not materialised in practice. 31. In regard to strategic co-ordination, the goal is to ensure that SAR is approached from a collective, national perspective so that it is provided seamlessly and efficiently. The Secretariat led the development of the strategic plan which has established a vision, mission and goals for New Zealand SAR and must now ensure that the plans currency is maintained. Similarly, the Secretariat must drive implementation, ensuring that focus and momentum is maintained. 32. Adopting a bottom up rather than top down perspective serves to highlights another role, namely, that of facilitating collaboration between stakeholders. The Secretariat can act as a bridge to the non-government sector, being a conduit for their issues and concerns. It can play a broking role in resolving issues between government agencies. And it is uniquely placed to promote a community of interest among all SAR stakeholders through encouraging close relationships between them. The value of the Secretariat to the sector in this capacity was a point to emerge during the consultation. It has implications for the Manager in terms of accountability and resources which are addressed in the following sections. 3.1.2 Functions 33. This seeks to identify the generic activities that the Secretariat should undertake to perform its role. 34. The statement in the Cabinet paper quoted above indicates that the Secretariat would be expected vigorously to drive implementation of initiatives emanating from the Council. It might suggest a wide ranging brief. However, the responsibilities of the government agencies delivering SAR and the resources likely to be available to the Secretariat need to be considered in determining the Secretariats scope. With regard to the former, it should not perform activities that those agencies are accountable for. With regard to the latter, capability will inevitably be limited for some time to come. 35. There are some obvious core functions. Policy advice providing high quality, well researched, advice on policy issues. Strategy development ensuring the sectors strategic plan remains relevant. Strategy implementation driving implementation of components of the plan and maintaining oversight of progress generally. Sector framework and performance defining the sectors boundaries (what activities and organisations are within its scope), collating statistics, reporting on outcomes. In evaluating performance, the focus should be at a high, strategic, level. For example, the Secretariat could be expected to evaluate the effectiveness of any funding proposals that Cabinet may approve. It should not responsible for measuring the performance of agencies operational responsibilities, in respect of which mechanisms already exist. Communications encouraging stakeholder participation and commitment by keeping them well informed of developments. Special reviews undertaking such inquiries as may be directed by the Council. The Secretariat is an appropriate body to examine issues affecting different elements of the sector or where independent assessment is desirable. Council support enabling the Council to function effectively. 36. Equally, there are activities that it is reasonably clear the Secretariat should not undertake. Operational funding. The Secretariat should not be the source of funding for operational activities either for government or non government agencies. Operational functions. The CNSS undertakes some operational activities: it maintains the compulsory beacon register and handles Canadas COSPAS/SARSAT responsibilities. It is not considered that the Secretariat should carry out these types of functions. Exercises. The organisation of multi-jurisdictional exercises is not an activity that the Secretariat needs to undertake. Auditing of agencies SAR operations. It is not envisaged that the Secretariat would audit specific components of an agencys operations, eg, Orion deployment or RCCNZs procedures. The effectiveness of such activities, however, may need to be considered at a high level in evaluating the sectors performance. Service level agreements with providers. While the Secretariat will have an interest in such agreements because of their impact on performance in the sector, it is clearly not the entity that should be responsible for negotiating them or auditing their implementation. 37. There are at least four other functions which the Secretariat might undertake. Prevention. In Canada, prevention ranks alongside response as a strategic goal of its SAR programme. In contrast, our strategic plan focusses solely on response. Obviously, prevention is not ignored in New Zealand but approached in a different way, as an agency responsibility. The exception is the current beacons campaign which the Secretariat is managing, on the basis that its impact spans land, sea and air. From a policy perspective, it is difficult to deny that prevention should be an integral part of an overarching SAR strategy but, equally, there is no evidence that it is falling into a gap currently. The matter warrants further attention in the context of the next strategic plan review but, until a decision is made to include it within the plans scope, the Secretariat should only be concerned with prevention where the circumstances make this particularly appropriate. Research and development. Canada makes C$8.1m available each year for improving SAR capability. The ability to apply some funding to research and development would be advantageous but is not a priority in the immediate future. International obligations. It is an open question how far the Secretariat should be concerned with international SAR obligations. If new undertakings are being proposed, it could be expected that the Councils advice would be sought and tendered to Cabinet. It would also be helpful if the Secretariat could be kept abreast of the consideration of SAR matters at international meetings so that a high level overview can be maintained. Otherwise, most issues concerning international commitments would seem to best suited to individual agencies to handle. The Secretariat will need to deal with international issues as and when they arise but the subject should not be accorded a high priority. Training. The Manager currently has a role in training as a member of LandSARs programme advisory committee but has no comparable involvement in other parts of the sector. Training is a subject that will inevitably come into focus under the strategic plan given its obvious impact on the performance of the sector. It needs to be one of the Secretariats functions but at a high level, that is, attention will need to be on training standards, not training delivery. 3.1.3 Outputs 38. The Secretariat should be expected to produce the following outputs. Annual A work programme and budget for Council approval. Reports on strategic plan implementation (quarterly) An annual report for consideration by the Council. The Council may decide to use it for accountability to Ministers and the sector. Reports on any special assignments or projects. A communications plan. Successful management of the SAR award programme. The strategic plan should be reviewed and updated every three years. 3.1.4 Comment 39. Further examination by those closely involved with the Secretariat may suggest modifications or additions to the above analysis. Whatever the content finally settled upon, it is important to that the roles, functions and outputs be recorded formally. The Secretariat has operated up to now without an explicit statement of these matters. Given the complexity of its role, its terms of reference should be spelt out. 3.2 Organisational, accountability and communication arrangements 3.2.1 SAR accountability structure 40. Responsibility for ensuring that New Zealand meets its international SAR obligations in respect of sea and air is carried by the Minister of Transport. The legislative powers conferred on the Minister for this purpose have been delegated to Maritime New Zealand. Land based SAR is the responsibility of the NZ Police. 41. Other government agencies that may become involved in SAR operations, eg, NZ Defence Force, Civil Aviation Authority and NZ Fire Service, are responsible to their own Ministers for their activities and use of resources. 42. There is no designated lead Minister for SAR although the same Minister is currently responsible for both the Transport and Police portfolios. The strategic funding proposals that have been developed will be submitted to Cabinet by the Minister of Transport. 43. The SAR Council does not report to a specific Minister but is responsible to Cabinet via ODESC. 3.2.2 Accountability of the Secretariat 44. All parties consulted see the Secretariat as being accountable to the SAR Council. The view is that it serves the interests of the sector as a whole and should be responsible to the body representative of the sector. It is seen as inimical to the concept of the Council for the Manager to be beholden to any particular component of the sector. 45. The problem is that this view is at variance with the legal and practical reality regarding accountability. Although it pays for the Secretariat (through its members) the Council, as an inter-departmental committee, lacks the authority to employ its staff. Rather, the Managers contract is with the Ministry. His performance agreement is with a second tier Ministry manager. The Secretariat is located within the Ministry. Legally, under the State Services Act, the CEO of the Ministry is responsible for the expenditure on the Secretariat. 46. There is a gap between how the role is perceived and the formal accountability mechanisms. The Manager must deal with the ambiguity of working for the Council but reporting to, and being administratively a part of, the Ministry. The close relationship with the latter may mean, for example, that the need to distinguish between the Secretary as Chair of the Council and in his Ministry role is overlooked on occasion. There is also scope for confusion over the process to be followed in meeting the Minister of Transport needs for information on SAR topics and in what the Manager may say in public forums. 47. It is stressed that this ambiguity has yet to cause major problems but its potential to do so is foreseen. The issue is important because of the risk to the effectiveness of the Secretariat. Its credibility in the eyes of both the voluntary agencies and other government agencies will be eroded if it is seen to be constrained by the Ministrys policy or other interests. For the voluntary agencies, the Secretariat is seen as, if not an advocate, at least a trustworthy messenger who should not be at the risk of being shot. At a personal level, the individual will also placed in a difficult position if the manager to whom he or she reports is not supportive. 3.2.3 Organisational options 48. The scope for overcoming this problem by reconstituting the Secretariat in a different form was examined. 49. The alternative to a department, under the State Sector Act, is a crown entity. These fall into different categories (independent, autonomous etc) but they all have boards and are subject to the accountability regime established by the Crown Entities Act. Such a structure is clearly not appropriate to the scale of the Secretariats activities. 50. Within the framework of the State Sector Act, there are some semi-autonomous bodies, the Food Safety Authority being an example. The Authority is responsible for discharging the Ministry of Agricultures functions in respect of food safety and takes the primary role in servicing the needs of the Minister for Food Safety. Its 420 staff are employees of MAF, which is responsible for pay and rations. This governance form enables a degree of policy independence to be achieved while maintaining essential linkages to the work of the host agency. It does appeal as a suitable model but, again, the scale of the Secretariats activities is too limited to justify its adoption. 51. Some departments have staff assigned to supporting Ministerially appointed advisory groups. Examples are to be found in health, occupational safety and overseas aid. The people involved are in a similar position to the Manager in that they work for a group external to their department while remaining employees of it. Tensions with their employer have been known to occur in the course of discharging their responsibilities. The difference is that problems of this type can be taken up with the Minister by the chairs of the advisory groups if necessary. 52. The different streams of work contributing to the Injury Prevention Strategy are co-ordinated by a small secretariat within ACC. This sits within a well developed accountability structure leading to the Minister of ACC as lead Minister. 53. Finally, some departments are responsible for trusts established for public purposes. This involves them in administering the trusts according to their deeds and, generally, does not cause difficulties concerning conflict of responsibilities. Conclusion 54. Within the public sector landscape, there may well be an entity in a position comparable to the SAR Secretariat offering insights into how the latter might be better structured. However, it has not been found in this review. Accordingly, no change to the Secretariats current organisational form is proposed. The Manager and any other staff should be the responsibility of the Ministry but measures should be instituted to improve role definition, reflecting its special character and reinforcing its sector wide focus. 56. First, the nature of the role should be acknowledged in the Secretariats terms of reference and be explicitly recorded in the job description. 57. Secondly, certain processes should be followed. The appointment process should involve stakeholders, eg, they should be represented on the interview panel. Input should be sought from a selection of stakeholders into the performance assessment of the Manager. Protocols should be established concerning Ministerial briefings and public statements, eg at conferences. 58. Thirdly, the Secretariat should be seen as directly accountable to the Council for some outputs, such as the annual work programme and budget; reports on implementation of work programme; and an annual report. 59. Fourthly, the way the Secretariat operates should reflect its role of working in the interests of the sector. See further comment under 3.5. 3.2.4 Communication arrangements 60. The Consultative Committee should remain the principal avenue for consultation with voluntary agencies. Ideally, this should meet quarterly, ahead of the Council, but cognisance needs to be taken of the burden this poses for some agencies. It may not be feasible in all years. 61. As indicated elsewhere in this report, the Secretariat plays a pivotal role as a link to the voluntary organisations involved in SAR. It is important that it maintains an active communications programme, keeping these organisations well-informed about developments. 3.3 Size and structure 3.3.1 Size 62. The Cabinet paper stressed the need for a well-resourced Secretariat to support the Council in achieving improvements in SAR. 3.3.1.1 Workload 63. Over the last year, the Secretariats effort has been directed to: policy development (the strategic funding proposals); prevention (the beacons campaign); special projects (the ZK-HTF review); some aspects of communications, eg, updating the website; engagement with voluntary agencies; and servicing the Council. 64. This constitutes a significant workload for one person. Clearly, there has been no unused capacity and is unlikely that this will change over the next 12 to 18 months. The development of the strategic funding proposals has been the single biggest absorber of time and while its priority will diminish it may be replaced with issues concerning its implementation. 3.3.1.2 Priorities 65. The existing workload has meant that strategy or, more specifically, implementation of the strategic plan, has not received the attention that its priority demands. The development of the strategic plan was a milestone and the Council accorded its implementation high priority. However, of the 20 projects identified as having high or medium priority, only five are being actively pursued. Effort must be made to regain the momentum lost in pursuit of the strategic direction embodied in the plan. 66. The first task must be to review the plan to update it. This should be followed by the development of detailed project plans for the priority projects, continuing through to implementation via multi party teams. 67. There is ample work for a person with analytical and project planning skills working full time in this area. The addition of such a person, supplemented by an allocation for funding of project plans, would be a major advance. This is required regardless of whether the other matters proposed for the funding via budget process are approved or not. 68. Another priority of the work programme in the immediate future must the continued integration of the wide variety of SAR organisations. This is referred to in the strategic plan as developing a culture of one SAR body. An alternative expression is building a SAR community. This will require the development of a communications plan and increased communications activity. Currently, expenditure on this function from the Secretariats regular budget is virtually nil, the beacons campaign being separately funded. An allocation of $50,000 to fund strategic communications activities would be reasonable. 3.3.1.3 Continuity and depth 69. The current situation of a single employee means the Council has access to only one skill set. It also means there is no back up capacity should the Manager be away for an extended period for any reason. And, as has already occurred, progress with the work programme is jeopardised if there is a delay in replacing the Manager. These considerations support the employment of a further person. 3.3.1.4 Other priorities 70. The additional resources proposed for the Secretariat should be part of the overall funding package to be considered by Cabinet. If it is viewed on its own, the question arises whether it is the best way of spending $250,000 of new money on SAR. How does the value compare with, say, funding an additional white water response team or additional staffing of RCCNZ? This is a matter of judgement but it is clear that the Secretariat will not be fully effective in its strategic role without further resources. 3.3.1.5 Benchmarks 71. Nothing useful in the nature of performance benchmarks was found in reviewing the approaches in other countries. 3.3.1.6 Conclusion 72. It is recommended that provision be made to increase the Secretariats annual funding by $250,000 pa commencing on 1 July 2007 to provide for the engagement of a second person with analytical and project planning skills ($150,000), a budget for implementation of the strategic plan ($50,000) and an enhanced communications plan ($50,000). 3.3.2 Structure 73. Structure will not be an issue in the foreseeable future. In the long term, it may develop along two streams, namely policy and strategy, and communications. 3.4 Funding 74. In order to implement the system quickly, agencies agreed to fund the operation of the Secretariat during its initial phase. Accordingly, from 2003/04, NZ Police, NZ Defence Force, CAA and Maritime NZ have contributed $40,000 in cash each year from their baseline funding with the Ministry providing accommodation and support services assessed at a value of $40,000 per annum. During 2005/06, agencies agreed to provide further cash contributions if this were necessary to complete the ZK-HTF inquiry. 75. The implication of Cabinets acceptance that a proposal for dedicated long term funding would be developed must be that the Crown would fund the Secretariats operations should it be decided to retain it. On the assumption that the Secretariat is to continue, the issue is whether there should be any funding arrangement other than full Crown funding. 76. It can be argued that the existing contributory arrangement should continue at the current level irrespective of whether the Secretariats budget is increased. First, the contributing agencies benefit from improved SAR co-ordination so the payments are a modest investment for them. Second, the fact that part of the funding is at risk is a stimulus to performance. Agencies will be more assiduous in evaluating the Secretariats performance when there is a direct financial cost to each of them than if it is fully funded by the Crown. 77. Against that, however, are the following considerations. The contributory arrangement was entered into explicitly as a temporary expedient, pending development of a specific funding proposal. Further, the Secretariat is performing a role strategic co-ordination that none of the agencies is responsible for individually. The contributory arrangement also exposes the Secretariat to the risk of being terminated for reasons unrelated to its performance. Although the amount involved is small, it is possible that general budgetary pressure would cause an agency to withdraw their contribution. This might be the case with CAA in particular because its interest is not the same as it was initially, with the transfer of its previous responsibilities to Maritime NZ. 78. In the light of these points, it is preferable that the existing contributory funding arrangement be replaced with an appropriation in Vote: Transport. 3.5 Administrative arrangements 79. The administrative support provided by the Ministry is effective. There is no reason to change the current arrangement. 80. As far as possible, the Secretariat should be allowed to develop an NZSAR brand. It already has a separate logo and website, as well as its own letterhead. Future publications should carry the NZSAR logo. Ideally, it should have its own meeting space, particularly for meetings with external parties, but it is recognised that this is unlikely to be practical. Being able to identify itself distinctively in these sorts of ways will help underline the Secretariats role of working on behalf of the sector. Part 4 Recommendations 1. The SAR Secretariat should continue in its current form. It should not be disestablished or reconstituted. 2. The Canadian approach, with its whole-of-sector focus, continues to be an appropriate model for the development of the Secretariat. 3. The Secretariat should be provided with formal terms of reference specifying the role, functions and outputs expected to be performed or delivered. 4. The ambiguity involved in the Secretariats role should be addressed by: The nature of the role being acknowledged in the terms of reference; Stakeholders participating in processes such as the recruitment and performance assessment of the Manager; The Manager being demonstrably accountable to the Council for certain outputs; The Secretariat operating under a NZ SAR brand. 5. The priorities for the work programme are the implementation of the strategic plan and the development of a community of interest among SAR stakeholders. 6. The Secretariats funding should be increased by $250,000 pa commencing on 1 July 2007 to provide for the engagement of a second person with analytical and project planning skills ($150,000), a budget for implementing projects under the strategic plan ($50,000) and an enhanced communications plan ($50,000). 7. The existing contributory funding arrangement should be replaced with an appropriation in Vote: Transport. Appendices 1. Cabinet paper and minute 2. SAR Structures: Australia, United States, United Kingdom Australia The National SAR Council operates pursuant to a voluntary inter-governmental agreement between states, territories and the federal government. Membership is restricted to the agencies responsible for SAR in each state and territory. It does not include representatives of voluntary agencies. Now in its 31st year, it meets once a year for two days. It is supported by AMSA as the federal agency responsible for SAR. It does not have a separate secretariat. The terms of reference are to: Develop, review and, if necessary, amend the National Search and Rescue Manual to provide policy for the prosecution of search and rescue incidents; Report on ongoing improvements and developments in matters relating to search and rescue both nationally and internationally; Ensure an efficient and effective search and rescue response capability is possible throughout Australia and its area of responsibility; Maintain a network of key search and rescue response agencies to ensure a seamless co-ordination of search and rescue incidents; Ensure compatibility of procedures for joint search and rescue operations involving State and Commonwealth authorities; Monitor and review the National Police Search and Rescue Co-ordinators course; Investigate, develop and review search and rescue strategies; Examine, and where appropriate, endorse suggested national policies for the continuous improvement of issues relating to search and rescue as raised at the National Search and Rescue Council; and Take appropriate action in relation to other matters resolved at Council. United States The National SAR Committee is a federal body provided for by an Agreement between the Departments of Transportation, Defense, Commerce, and Interior, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission. It reports to the Secretary for Transport via the Commandant of the Coastguard who is responsible for providing a Committee Secretary. The decisions of the Committee are not binding on the members. Decisions are taken by consensus. Its objectives are: Serve as a standing forum for co-ordination of administrative and operational civil SAR; Oversee the National Search and Rescue Plan and interagency guidance for its implementation; Co-ordinate and facilitate the development of plans, policies, positions, manuals etc., to: Resolve cross-agency jurisdictional issues; Develop joint solutions for SAR matters of common concern; Assign and co-ordinate SAR responsibilities; Develop and implement SAR requirements and standards; and Outline joint SAR tasking. Effectively use all available resources for SAR, including global, regional, national, private, commercial, and volunteer resources (such resources may advice, communications facilities and databases, ship reporting systems, training, SAR facilities, search planning expertise, technical assistance, foreign language assistance, medical or fuelling facilities, regulatory support, and others); Develop common equipment, facilities, and procedures as appropriate; Foster US co-operation, support, representation, positions, arrangements, plans, exercises and other appropriate US involvement with international organizations or with appropriate authorities of other nations on matters relating to provision of civil SAR services; Promote close co-operation and co-ordination between civilian and military authorities and organizations for the provision of effective SAR services; Serve as a co-operative forum to exchange information and develop positions and policies of interest to more than one member agency; Improve co-operation between among the civil SAR communities; Determine and recommend ways to enhance overall effectiveness and efficiency of SAR services; Promote safety programmes to help citizens avoid or cope with distress situations; Consider, as appropriate, contingency plans for use of civil SAR resources during emergencies other than SAR; and Use a strategic plan and member agency implementation plans to help to achieve the objectives of this paragraph. United Kingdom The organization of UK SAR is defined by the UK SAR Strategic Committee as supported by the UK SAR Operators Group. The former is an inter-agency national forum with responsibility for advising on the structure, scope and framework of the organization of UK SAR. Its objectives are: To develop criteria for the coverage, responsiveness and availability of SAR resources, consulting the UK SAR Operators Group as required; To offer views to Ministers on improving SAR capability, effectiveness and co-operation; To promote effective and efficient co-operation between the various Government Departments, the emergency services and other organizations including voluntary agencies for the provision of an effective SAR service at national and, where appropriate, international levels; To establish the framework for UK SAR as describe in this document; To provide terms of reference for the UK SAR Operators Group. The Committee does not have a separate secretariat. The Committees terms of reference require it to meet twice per year. A report by the Transport Committee of the House of Commons criticized it for meeting only once during 2005. 3. NATIONAL SEARCH AND RESCUE SECRETARIAT 4. Consultation Representatives of the following organisations were consulted for the purpose of the review. Civil Aviation Authority NZ Police Maritime New Zealand NZ Treasury NZ Defence Force Royal NZ Coastguard (Inc) NZ Land Search and Rescue (inc) Aviation Industry Association It is unnecessary to list the names of all the people consulted on the different aspects of the review, however, special mention is made of the help provided by Duncan Ferner, New Zealand SAR Secretariat Manager and Jean Murray, Executive Director, Canadian National SAR Secretariat.  Cabinet paper paragraph 3.21  Paragraph 7.2 CBC Min (03) 2/14  Cabinet paper paragraph 3.31  Paragraphs 3.21 to 3.26  Cabinet paper paragraph 3.24  Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue 1979  Paragraph 3.14  Paragraph 3.17  This is Ministry of Transports estimate of the total cost involved.   HYPERLINK "http://natsar.amsa.gov.au/About_the_Council/Terms_of_Reference.asp" http://natsar.amsa.gov.au/About_the_Council/Terms_of_Reference.asp   HYPERLINK "http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opr/nsarc/nsa.htm" http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opr/nsarc/nsa.htm  Search and Rescue Framework for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Queens Printer and Controller 2002, p12.     PAGE  PAGE 17 International Programs Officer (Major) 283554 Mil Senior Officer, SAR NIF 306511 - AS-04 Manager, SAR NIF 306508 - AS-06 Programs Officer 248592 AS-02 Senior Analyst Major Air Ops 263774 Mil Senior Federal Programs Coordinator 166725 AS-05 Communications Officer 180755 IS-03 Senior Analyst 242824 AS-07 Programs Officer 248576 AS-02 Secretariat Clerk 248600 CR-04 Secretariat Clerk 248601 CR-04 Secretariat Clerk 248602 CR-04 Communications Officer 278672 IS-03 Chief Communications Services 166732 IS-05 Federal and International Programs Officer 189138 PM-05 Chief, Non-Federal Programs 166722 PM-06 Research Analyst 227909 ES-04 Senior Analyst 242770 AS-07 Executive Assistant 166721 AS-01 Chief, Administration 166728 AS-03 Senior Finance Officer / Comptroller 309919 FI-03 Director, Communications 247825 IS-06 Director, Coordination 238342 AS-08 Director, Policy and Review 166727 EX-01 Executive Director 166720 EX-03  `$ - . e f  ѿ~uk^k^k^PBkh_7hh5OJQJ^JhThh5OJQJ^JhhhOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^Jhh5^JaJh_7hh^JaJhZFhh^JaJh1^JaJhh^JaJhzhh5OJQJ^Jhh5OJQJmH sH #hhhBH5OJQJ^JmH sH +hhhBH5CJ$OJQJ^JaJ$mH sH hhhBHOJQJ^JmH sH hBHmH sH      ,-OP`abcdefy@&gd1 y$ - . / C D V W g $ n@x@&]a$gd1$ n@x]a$gdh$ n@x@&]a$gd1 $@&a$gd1gd;01@&gd1  , O P y  % & 1 N $ n@x@&]a$gd1$ n@x]a$gdh X BJKOPpq ^`gdh@&gd1gdh$ & F SS]^S`a$gdh$ n@@&]a$gd1$ n@]a$gdhq# W[^_./"#黰鰣xfYYh&qhhOJQJ^J"jhh0J6OJQJU^Jhxhh6OJQJ^Jh`W%hhOJQJ^Jjhh0JOJQJU^Jh/!hhOJQJ^Jhh5OJQJ^Jhhh5OJQJ^Jhh5^JaJ hhaJh?hh5aJ hh5aJhhOJQJ^Jh4 hhOJQJ^J"qZ[./#$GH^gdh ^`gdhgdh$ S]a$gdh$ S]^`a$gdhtr s Y"Z"b$c$$$%% $]a$gdh$]^a$gdh$ S]^`a$gdhgdh$ S]a$gdh$ & F ]^a$gdh Z"h"c$p$$$%%i&p&&&&''((((((())!)))0)3)J)])x)y){)|)дРИЃvvvvvfvjhh0JOJQJU^Jh^hhOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^JhyLhh^JaJhh^JaJhz5^JaJhh56^JaJh \hh56^JaJh/!hh56^JaJhh5^JaJhjhh5OJQJ^Jhh5OJQJ^Jh8D+hh56^JaJ'%h&i&''(((({)|))***_,`,-- / /00$ S]^a$gdh ^`gdh$ S]a$gdh $]a$gdh$]^a$gdh|))**G*++`,,---0. //p000555555N8X8]8f8~88E:F:\:g:h:i:{: ;驞驞锇|ncnchh5OJQJ^JhMhh5OJQJ^Jh15OJQJ^Jh2hhOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^Jhjhh^JaJhh^JaJh)hh56^JaJhYJhh56^JaJjhh0J5U^JaJh2Uhh5^JaJhh5^JaJh2hh56^JaJ$0o0p00011y2z2Z3[33344555566;7<7gdh ^`gdh$ S]a$gdh$ S]^`a$gdh<788E:F:h:i:{:|:<<>>????,@-@AAAABBOB & Fgdh & Fgdh@&gd1gdh ^`gdh ; ; = =%=&=]?^??????!C"CDDDE EEE?F@FFFFF GG-G/G3GGGLG峥zlzzzzzzz^he{hh5OJQJ^JhhCJOJQJ^JaJ h18hhCJOJQJ^JaJhMzhhOJQJ^Jh?*hhOJQJ^Jhhh5OJQJ^Jhh5OJQJ^JhhhOJQJ^JhMhhOJQJ^JhRThhOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^Jjhh0JOJQJU^J"OBPBB C"D#DDDDDDE $Ifgdh ^`gdh & Fgdhgdh E EE"EJEcElExEEE^UUUUUUUU $Ifgdhkd$$Ifl\:," t0644 layth EEEEEEE$F1F?FUkdb$$Ifl\:," t0644 layth $Ifgdh ?F@FOFaFsF|FFFFF^UUUUUUUU $Ifgdhkd$$Ifl\:," t0644 layth FFFFFF^UUUU $Ifgdhkd&$$Ifl\:," t0644 laythFFFFF G^UUUU $Ifgdhkd$$Ifl\:," t0644 layth GGGG!G-G^UUUU $Ifgdhkd$$Ifl\:," t0644 layth-G.G/GGGHG5I6IKK^YSYFYFY ^`gdh@&gd1gdhkdL$$Ifl\:," t0644 laythLGOG`GoG|GGGGGGFHWHLLLL MM~MMMMMMMMMMMNNNOFOGO霔uguYuYuhr5hh56^JaJhghh56^JaJhh56^JaJhh5^JaJh.hh^JaJhh^JaJh&;hhOJQJ^Jh\LhhOJQJ^Jhh5OJQJ^Jhhh5OJQJ^Jh`dhhOJQJ^Jh_;whhOJQJ^JhhOJQJ^JhihhOJQJ^J"KLLMMMMMMMMNNPPQQBTCTVVXX$ S]^`a$gdh$ S]a$gdhgdh ^`gdhGOOOOOPP_P`PPPPPPQQRRaUbUV)V+VAVUVVVW*WWWWW X X|XXXXXXXXYYhh56^JaJhqhh56^JaJhh56^JaJhh5^JaJhHEhh5^JaJ hh5^JhFhh5^J%23%& +,=>ҊӊIJތ ^`gdhgdh$ S]^`a$gdh$ S@&]a$gd1$ S]a$gdh $]a$gdh$]^`a$gdhތ!"֍׍() $ S@&]a$gd1$ S]^`a$gdh$ S]a$gdh ^`gdhgdh$]^a$gdh#(u}*+3=GHۛɾ쾰ɾ{t{mmdhx2hhaJ hh5aJ hThhhhhThh^JaJhh^JaJjhh0J5U^JaJhbchh56^JaJhS}hh6OJQJ^Jhh6OJQJ^JhhOJQJ^JhS}hh56^JaJhh56^JaJhh5^JaJhS}hh^JaJ' ?b‘tu]^*+gdh$ S]a$gdh$ S]^`a$gdh$ S]`a$gdh$ & F ]a$gdh+HIڛۛ ^`gdh$ S]^`a$gdh$ S]a$gdhgdh=>HI ^`gdh ^`gdhgdh$ S]a$gdh$ S]^`a$gdhg=P $(23GHJMfhkyɿɶꬢvh^hhOJQJ^JhMhh5OJQJ^Jh_hhaJhd'hhaJh>bShhCJ0aJ0hhCJ0aJ0 h15aJh>bSh15aJh>bShh5aJhh5^JaJhO hh5aJh?hh5aJ hh^J hh5^Jh|| hh5^J hh5aJhx2hhaJ hhaJ$=>Ѯ>ïįcd $ S]^`a$gdh$ S]a$gdh & Fgdhgdh ^`gdh !"#$3456789:;@&gd1gdhgd1;<=>?@ABCDEFGHJfh6 & F gdhgdh@&gd1gdhԸغٺ./01[\]^_`p尢哆|voh^S^S^OhNhhhNmH sH jhN0JU hhh;01 hh5aJ hhaJhd'hh5aJhxhhOJQJ^Jhhhh5OJQJ^Jhhhh5OJQJ^J3jhhhh5OJQJU^JmHnHsH uhhhhOJQJ^JhMhh5OJQJ^JhhOJQJ^Jjhh0JOJQJU^J=6ķҸӸԸĺźں3Sռ_ & F gdh & F gdh@&gd1gdh & F gdhDe*YEFz{0[\]$a$gdh & F gdh@&gd1gdh & F gdh]^_`pq ()CDdegdh@&gd1gdhgdh;mOZ &`#$gd1gdh:;<=NOPQR^'ߑtgߑh~^hN0JmH sH #jh~^hNUmH sH hihNmH sH jhNUmH sH hNhNmH sH h22hNmH sH h8$hNmH sH hbhNmH sH h`W%hNmH sH hHAhNmH sH hNjhN0JUhB*|hNmH sH hNmH sH ('()WXYZ[\̜m^mMm!hN0JOJQJ^JmHnHuh1hN0JOJQJ^J%jh1hN0JOJQJU^J hN0JjhN0JUjhNUh 3h>DhNmH sH h>DhN6mH sH hNjhN0JUhEhNmH sH hNmH sH h~^hN0JmH sH jhNUmH sH #j/h~^hNUmH sH  *23@AXZhijk{| &56Fѿѿp[p[p[(hJ?!hNCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hJ?!hN5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hvhNCJ hJ?!hNCJOJQJ^JaJhNCJOJQJ^JaJ hT.hNCJOJQJ^JaJ#hJ?!hN5CJOJQJ^JaJhN5CJOJQJ^JaJh 3hhhNaJhNh1hN0JOJQJ^J# 3@AYZijk|} $ 8a$gdh$a$gdhgdh %&56EFUVghwx $ 8a$gdh$a$gdhFUVgwx '67bqr+,BPQWZ_`a{խ՛"hNCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH %hN5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH (hJ?!hNCJOJQJ^JaJmH sH +hJ?!hN5CJOJQJ^JaJmH sH hN hJ?!hNCJOJQJ^JaJ7 '67bqr $ 8a$gdh$a$gdh+,Q`az{gdh$a$gdh $ 8a$gdh hhh;01hhhN hJ?!hNCJOJQJ^JaJ#hJ?!hN5CJOJQJ^JaJ8 0 01h:p1/ =!"#$% < 001hP:p1/ =!"#$% 5 01h:p1/ =!"#$% 51h0:ph= /!"#$% ,1h/ =!"#$% `$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t65yth`$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t65yth`$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t65yth`$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t65yth`$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t65yth`$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t65yth`$$If!vh5555#v:Vl t65ythDyK Chttp://natsar.amsa.gov.au/About_the_Council/Terms_of_Reference.aspyK http://natsar.amsa.gov.au/About_the_Council/Terms_of_Reference.asp1DyK /http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opr/nsarc/nsa.htmyK ^http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opr/nsarc/nsa.htm@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListHH  Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJNP@N h Body Text 25OJQJaJmH sH tH >@> h Footnote TextCJaJ@&@!@ hFootnote ReferenceH*j@3j h Table Grid7:V06U@A6 h Hyperlink >*B*ph4@R4 hHeader  !4 @b4 hFooter  !.)@q. h Page NumberZYZ 1 Document Map-D M CJOJQJ^JaJx!% 3HIز˻ A`zBSeF?B    ``BBBeeeeeeeeF??B r5_*Jl+f U76543210/+*)('&%$#"! 5_*Jl+f U .0^D:DxDDDzz zzzzzz z z z z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz v z. 4)1:@DNWajt~VIgڲ0^4 s )  VT ,-OP`abcdefy./CDVWg ,OPy %&1NXBJ K O P p q Z[./#$GHtrsYZbchi {!|!)"*"_$`$%% ' '((o(p((())y*z*Z+[+++,,----..;/1>?>@>O>a>s>|>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ????!?-?.?/?G?H?5A6ACCDEEEEEEEEFFHHIIBLCLNNPPQQtQuQSSSSQTTU'WWXXX(Y)YYZ?[y\]]]][a\aBbCbddffff1g2g:g;gmgg'hWhohhhhhhhjjj k kPlQl2m3m;n҂ӂIJބ!"օׅ()ˆ ?b‰tu]^*+HIړۓ=>HI=>Ѧ>çħcd  !"#$3456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGJh6=6įҰӰ԰IJŲڲ3Sմ_Dɸe*ͻY½EFz0[^_`pqοϿ ()CDde !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!߆ !!!!!!!!7!7!R !!!v:v:v:v:u:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:Hv:v:v:v:v:v:^ v:v:v:v:v:v:v:v:^ v:v:v:v:u:v:v:v:v:u:v:v:v:v:u:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7!7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7!7!7!7!7!7!!-!!!!!!!!!7!7!7!!!!!!l3!!R !7!7!!7!7!7!7!!!!!!!7!7!R !!!!!22!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!v:!R ,-OP`abcdefy$-./CDVWg ,OPy %&1NXBJ K O P p q Z[./#$GHtrsYZbchi {!|!)"*"_$`$%% ' '((o(p((())y*z*Z+[+++,,----..;/1>?>@>O>a>s>|>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ????!?-?.?/?G?H?5A6ACCDDEEEEEEEEFFHHIIBLCLNNPPQQtQuQSSSSQTTU'WWXXX(Y)YYZ?[y\]]]][a\aBbCbddffff1g2g:g;gmgg'hWhohhhhhhhjjjj k kPlQl2m3m;n҂ӂIJބ!"օׅ()ˆ ?b‰tu]^*+HIړۓ=>HI=>Ѧ>çħcd  !"#$3456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHJfh6=6įҰӰ԰IJŲڲ3Sմ_Dɸe*ͻY½EFz{0[\]^_`pqοϿ ()CDde;mOZ 3@AYZijk|} %&56EFUVghwx '67bqr+,Q`az{00000000000000000000-00P0P0P0P0P0P000y0y0y0y0y0y0y00000$0$00/00D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D0D00&0&0&0&00 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000i20i20i20i20i20i20i20070707 07 0-87 0-87 0-87 0-87 0-87 0-8707 07 07 0707070707 07 07 07 07 07 07070707070707 07 07 07 07 070707 07 07 07 07 0707070707 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 0700/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/?0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/? 0/?0/?00h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h0h00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0000000000000@0000000000000000000%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000հ0հ0հ0 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0Ʋ 0 Ʋ 0 Ʋ 0 Ʋ 0 Ʋ0Ʋ00000 0 0 0 0 0000G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G0G00п000000 0000*00E00f0f0f0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@000?000000000000@0@0@00@0@0@0@00@000 0@000@0@0@000W0@0@00 0S0@0@00 0O0@0@000K0@000H0@0@000D0@0@000@0@0@000<0@0@00080@0@00!040@0@00$000@0@00'0,0@00)0)0@00+0&0@00-0#0@0@00000@0@00300@0@00600@0@00900@00;00@0@00>0 0@0@00A00@00C00@0@0000XB= ===?>@>>>>> ??-?.?EFFHNd Fz{0[_e 3@ %5EUghwbqA 0cB 0!B 0!B 0!B 0!B 0!00*j00 00 j00 0 0 j00 0 0 j00 00jj00 00(kj00 00`kj00 @0j00j00j00j0 00020000 0@00 h000000000000kj00h000 0 @0@00"#(k0"0"0@0 00 0010 0 {0 0{0 0 {0 0{0 0{00{00 {00{00{00{00{00@0{00"{0 0{0 0"{00{000 %%%%%%''''''''''))))),|) ;LGGO%ikdVjj_9sXDvc{˚i]@R`(Z[s :9Ae$!(n ⣝rD⣝MM=3 ⣝0V⣝GiHIio_s1028Q=)z  >GeHIeo_s1029/ O (&z  >GeH;Ieo_s1030/ O "z  >GiHcIio_s1031Q=z  >GHkPIo_s1032=iz   >GiHdPIio_s1033Q=hz   >G HkPI o_s1034#=%it   s 8G+iHI+io_s1035 =hz   >G߶HI߶o_s1036jQ   DGuHLIu1 _s1037"=#  DGHLI1 _s1038=Q  DG*HLI*1 _s1039=  DG H-I o _s1040#=%  DG HZI o _s1041#=%5  DGiH-Iio _s1042Q=  DGiHZIio _s1043Q=5  DGHIo _s1044=0z  >G+iHI+io _s1045 =6z  >GHNIo _s1046!"x " B DG H7I[o _s1047"4 " B DG H;hI*o _s1048"O, " B DG HDIo _s1049"# "  DG HIt.o _s1050Q" "  DG HrIOo _s1051" "  V _s10523"`  P& "  V _s1053C"`    P= "  V _s1054C"`    = "  V _s1055C"`   O '= "   V  _s10563"`  ( /= " ! V! _s1057C"`   1 O8= " " V" _s10583"`  PG!  " # V# _s10593"`   j " $ P$ _s10603"`  _ " % P% _s10613"`  "i " & P& _s10623"`  " " ' P' _s10633"`  %P,i " ( P ( _s10643"`  %P,  " ) V ) _s10653"`  Po  " * \ * _s10663"`  o  " + V + _s10673"`  o"  N , 3 o` - c $GB]HIB]o"=4N . 3 o" / J /_s10713"`  Q  " 0 P0_s10723"`  8  " 1 P1̙_s10733"`  %8O, " 2 J2_s10743"`  8" " 3 P3_s10753"`  8 " 4 P4_s10763"`  O $'Y' " 5 P5_s10773"`  "/  " 6 P6_s10783"`  O a!'# " 7 P7_s10793"`  ("* B S  ?` !"#$ % & ' ( )*+ ,!-./# 0 1 2 35654570L4F't?"ԅ|  l D6 < ?| @ //$$BBbm||223^3n3|3|3'565M5M56677`?`?VAVABBDDIIBZBZ]]^^wawa1k1k{԰԰      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>::**MMkz223l3t33305D5Z5Z56677f?f?aAaABBDDIIHZHZ]]^^}a}aB>*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9?*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace P},?>?>?>>?>?>>>?>?>>>>?>>>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>>>?>?>?>?>?>?} """"##)#p/z/88::K;O;;;<<>">a>i>YYKZXZZZ[[[[e^m^aaFeOePeYellnnr rzz3|@|=?68DŽЄx~}$(r|t~QX x{$&Ziiq |!!*"H"%1& ''A AtA-BSPT)Y=YZZ?[d[y\\]]\auaCb]bdezz3|@|ބ_b29QX :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::3T}F2i2w9:<=J==/>O>|>H?3g;gmggWhoh?b‰ڲմͻ`qQX ?k 46TVvx 5r*aQX [aM*7mR0K"JCa4..X#@*jLr@ #AR %Ėr!- ,z/k[<8lu>;Zsl!E0 rpvK.ALLMحzp{2V`DhX,@$eVgSarоZ zr-Vy;mRpvKALK"J1>?>@>O>>>>>>>>>>>>> ????!?-?.?@ujP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hff^zb_b_!4@@2qHX ?5W2 Murray Family Duncan Fernerl                   Oh+'0   @ L X dpxMurray Family normal.dotDuncan Ferner3Microsoft Office Word@F#@?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>@ABCDEFHIJKLMNSRoot Entry F#轜UData 1Table&WordDocumentESummaryInformation(?DocumentSummaryInformation8GCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q