Safety battles at Defence
WorkSafe was so concerned about a spate of deaths and injuries in the military that it met three times with the Defence Force last year to discuss ways of improving health and safety. Tony Wall reports.
Karl Maddaford made it clear in emails he sent to staff in the safety directorate at the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) that he was a ‘‘straight talker’’ employed by WorkSafe to ‘‘get results’’.
Last July, Maddaford had just been appointed to a new role as national manager of critical response, in charge of building WorkSafe’s ability to respond to civil defence and emergency management events, and provide specialist support for investigations.
One of his first jobs was to find out what was going on at the NZDF – the umbrella organisation for the army, air force and navy – after a spate of injuries and deaths during training.
Maddaford was the perfect man for the job – he had served in the army for many years, worked as a United Nations project manager in Afghanistan between 2004 and 2006, and had recently finished up as chief planning officer at the Pike River Recovery Agency.
‘‘If you can help me build a strong relationship between WorkSafe and NZDF that directly results in demonstrably less harm to our people, then we have work to do,’’ Maddaford wrote to Moira King, the NZDF’s deputy director of safety engagement.
Stuff obtained the email and many others from WorkSafe under the Official Information Act (OIA). They show that, despite signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in 2019, the relationship between the agencies had become strained.
Maddaford wrote that, while the MOU made ‘‘encouraging reading’’, he had concerns ‘‘regarding what I call the ‘knowing-doing gap’.
‘‘As the situation stands, NZDF and army in particular are hurting people at a rate that suggests a degree of systemic issues.
‘‘Further, the perception I have developed . . . within my WorkSafe colleagues is one of increasing frustration with the interaction experience.’’
Data obtained from Defence under the OIA shows that the army has continued to have a run of deaths and serious injuries, even after an external review in 2013, which made 20 recommendations to improve the safety culture.
In total, 34 personnel have died in work-related incidents since 2001 – only seven of those in combat. Twenty-five – or 73 per cent – were army staff.
Additionally, there have been 54 serious injuries in just the past five years, 32 of them involving army personnel.
Going back to 1987, a total of 285 active Defence Force personnel have died, although that includes off-duty accidents and natural causes, as the NZDF was unable to provide numbers of work-related deaths only for that period.
In a candid admission, Captain Maxine Lawes, the NZDF’s director of safety, told Stuff the recent deaths and injuries during training were ‘‘unacceptable and deeply regretted’’.
‘‘Our people are our greatest asset, and their safety is our highest priority. Where we fall short in this, it is right that there is accountability to WorkSafe and the civilian courts.
‘‘We must be able to assure our people and their wha¯ nau that we are doing our utmost to keep them safe.’’
WorkSafe said in October last year that it was concerned about the number of incidents involving the NZDF, and was working with it to ensure standards were being met.
This was after the agency had laid charges over the death of navy diver Zachary Yarwood during a training incident at Devonport naval base in March 2019. The NZDF was charged with failing to ensure the safety of employees, and was fined $288,750 in the Auckland District Court.
In another case still before the courts, the NZDF faces a similar charge over the death of SAS trooper Lance Corporal Nicholas Kahotea, while jumping from a helicopter during an exercise at Ardmore, South Auckland, in May 2019.
Just weeks after that incident, a soldier was shot during a training activity at the SAS facility. He recovered.
The MOU between WorkSafe and the NZDF, a copy of which was released under the OIA, sets out ways for the parties to work together to improve health and safety.
While the main principles of the agreement are open communication, ‘‘no surprises’’, collaboration and integrity, it notes that health and safety at work legislation does not apply to an ‘‘operational activity’’, and the chief of Defence can declare any activity as such.
It also says that WorkSafe inspectors can be prohibited from accessing certain Defence areas, including ships and aircraft, ‘‘for the purpose of maintaining security’’.
Maddaford met three times last year with NZDF staff to discuss ways of improving the safety culture. Responding to his claim that WorkSafe staff were frustrated in their dealings with NZDF, Lawes said she was ‘‘disappointed you have that perception’’, as no concerns had previously been raised.
She wrote that NZDF had worked hard to ensure it was working ‘‘within the spirit of the MOU – which we highly value’’.
She told Maddaford the NZDF was working on how it could share information more easily during investigations, particularly when it was conducting a court of inquiry at the same time.
‘‘Obviously we want to ensure our people are not harmed and that an investigation is the last resort not the norm,’’ she wrote.
‘‘I am more than happy to meet and discuss your concerns and a way ahead to ensure that both organisations are working together to keep NZDF members safe.’’
WorkSafe also released copies of handwritten notes taken by Maddaford during one of the meetings. He noted the army had a very different health and safety structure to the air force and navy. Staff described the spate of accidents as a ‘‘plip’’, and a review was under way.
Under ‘‘issues’’, Maddaford wrote ‘‘fatigue’’ and ‘‘training focus’’. At one point he wrote: ‘‘More and more senior civilians in charge. Challenges: information flows – disseminated information often difficult to collate.’’
He also noted ‘‘pushback’’ from Lawes, who said ‘‘if you remove ‘sports injuries’ from stats, the number of incidents reduces dramatically’’.
The notes also refer to ‘‘reputational harm to NZDF’’, ‘‘financial penalties’’ and ‘‘adverse PR’’.
Maddaford declined to comment when contacted by Stuff.
After reading the material released by the two agencies, Christopher Yarwood, father of navy diver Zach, said he wasn’t surprised by WorkSafe’s frustration.
‘‘I continue to be shocked with . . . what goes on in relation to NZDF attitude to safety in the workplace.
‘‘My son went to work on the 25th March 2019 and didn’t come home – if the navy had adhered to its own safety rules I would have just celebrated his 25th birthday.
‘‘During the WorkSafe investigation and the legal process, they did everything legally possible to protect their reputation rather than openly be accountable.’’
Andrew Carson, whose son Ben was killed in the Anzac Day helicopter crash near Wellington in 2010, questioned why there needed to be an MOU between the agencies. It appeared the NZDF was in charge and worked with WorkSafe only when forced to.
‘‘Our concern is that NZDF expect to work with, but not be investigated [by WorkSafe]. Where in New Zealand law can the ‘company’ dictate to WorkSafe what or when it can be investigated?
‘‘In our view [WorkSafe] have the right and must investigate whatever they need to. There may be secret or sensitive information – this should then be decided by an independent body.’’
Carson said it was vital that investigations were separated from the court of inquiry process.
‘‘Military law may have a place during combat, but the personnel in the NZDF should be treated and investigated the same as all New Zealanders.
‘‘Until the NZDF are compelled to recognise this for both injury, death and criminal behaviour, we do not believe anything will change.’’
Lawes said the court of inquiry process was designed to improve procedures.
The NZDF was a ‘‘large and complex organisation’’ operating in many different environments. ‘‘There is a whole spectrum of safety hazards ranging from slips, trips and falls to the vastly more complex risks in the different environments.
‘‘The NZDF is working hard to improve our safety culture with an emphasis on safety in training.’’
As an example, it had recently introduced a Safety Event Management Tool, which allowed personnel to report events and hazards, and share examples of good safety practice.
She said there was a ‘‘positive, professional and respectful relationship at all levels’’ between the NZDF and WorkSafe.
‘‘As the situation stands, NZDF and army in particular are hurting people at a rate that suggests a degree of systemic issues.’’
WorkSafe national manager of critical response Karl Maddaford