That report, I don't know if it could have been more damning, because it told us Tauranga City Council was warned multiple times that a landslide might happen in exactly the spot where a landslide happened, as early as 1999 and as most recently as only six or seven months before the landslide.
The most recent warning said that because this might happen, the council should put in place a warning system where if somebody saw something untoward, they could then call in and a series of things would kick into motion that would lead to the evacuation of people to save their lives.
On the day of the landslide, someone saw something untoward and they called it in and nothing happened because there was no system. There was no clear direction on who to call and what to do and whether to evacuate people.
Now, Marty Grenfell's strategy is to blame the person who received the report and the manager who saw it for not passing it on to someone who could then create that system, that warning system. And look, that's fair. We've all worked in organisations where that kind of thing happens, right?
But we also know those organisations only exist like that because the boss thinks it's okay that the organisation is a shambles like that. Because the boss thinks it's okay to spend money on consultants to prepare reports that then just get filed away and not acted on.
Marty Grenfell has been the boss of that organisation in that state of shambles for about eight years. That is more than enough time to tidy it up and he hasn't. So it is ultimately his fault as the boss that the system was that untidy and that people died because of a system failure.
Now, he needs to quit. Either he needs to say that the person who got the report and didn't pass it on needs to quit because they didn't know who to pass it on to, or he needs to quit because he oversaw a system where they didn't know who to pass it on to.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and radio broadcaster who hosts Newstalk ZB's weekday Drive-Time Show – where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
Marty Grenfell should face prosecution. This failure of due diligence is analogous to the previous prosecution of the CEO of Ports of Auckland over the death of a Stevedore. Worksafe need to do their job.
There are only two possibilities here. One is unbelievable bureaucratic incompetence. The other is to hide the facts that showed the risk for reasons best known to them and risk the lives. So which is it crooked and incompetent Council because there is no third possibility
While the earlier engineering reports may not have been seen by the CEO and the Mayor (that has still to be independently verified), Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao (the Mauao Joint Administration Board, which has four members appointed by the Mauao Trust [the Mt's owner's] and four by the Council), most certainly did. So, it's very likely not just one or two who are 'negligent' and accountable here, there's a Board of at least eight that appear negligent and need to be brought to account.
This is a mad country
Bunch of people needlessly killed and 🤷🏻♂️ oh well, nobody did anything about multiple reports
Was there even a “sorry” ?? 🤦♂️
From a guarded interview of a maori on RNZ it would seem that details were probably circulated to mauao members. But as the prime concerns of the ruling faction of such 50/50 organisations is 1) financial gain for maori and 2) to tweak pakeha and thus gain mana Brownie points, then there was nothing offering them in a potential landslip. The non 50% maori contingent is so out maneouvered in these organisations that there is little point in looking for work, certainly not to the extent of pondering for meetings cancelled.
Heather, I think there are three problems with our propensity to look for scapegoats when a tragedy like this occurs. First, we know far less than the Commissioner who did the investigation, and if he didn't identify a culprit, then who are we to say we know better. It's never as simple as we superficially think. Secondly, people in positions of responsibility actually learn from situations like this. The last thing we want to do is to deprive ourselves of the benefit of those learnings by eliminating the very people who are in the best position to implement them. Thirdly, I'm sure that for every hillside in New Zealand, every river and lake, every worksite, every geothermal outlet, every earthquake prone area, and every exposed coast (I could go on), someone somewhere has said that they potentially pose a risk to human life. When one of those risks actually materialises, it's very easy to flush out those past statements as evidence that we were forewarned. And if that's the case, we may as well all go and live in a concrete bomb shelter, and be done with it.
To Anon at 12.04pm:
The NZ Herald, 22 Aug, p A9 discusses how Tauranga CC dealt (or maybe failed to deal) with managing risks on the hill above the campground.
One of the four voluntary members of the managing trust said he wasn't sure if he read a 2025 Geotechnical report on the risks, but had he been a paid councillor he would have read it "absolutely".
There's a man who doesn't understand the meaning of "volunteer".
I am astonished that all the Councillors who were given a 'pre meeting" document failed to read it. It is routine for councillors to have a copy of meeting documents beforehand so they may prepare themselves and possibly be better able to understand or question the authors. Had only one of them blown a whistle, six lives may have been saved. What makes matters worse is none of them seem contrite. Also the owners representatives memory lapse seems a bit suspicious!
There have only been 16 deaths in NZ in the last 50 years from rainfall induced slips.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.