“We must demand changes and we must demand accountability to this House.” “On ministerial responsibility, Ministers should, at the very least, publicly make themselves accountable and ensure that the errors will not occur again. I believe I have done that. I said in the House last November that I am profoundly sorry. Today I am taking a further step to express my sorrow for what happened that fateful day at Cave Creek.” |
Changes:
April 28th 1995 changed New Zealand forever. 14 people killed in the Cave Creek disaster and as a result, after Friday April 28th 1995, laws were changed and lives were changed. These changes, both positive and negative, have led to questions, inquiries and reforms, all helping shape New Zealand into the country it is today. Deaths: Firstly, the collapse killed fourteen people. Thirteen were students from Tai Poutini Polytechnic, studying outdoor recreation, and the other was a Department of Conservation Field Officer, Stephen O’Dea. Eleven of these students died instantly. These students were from all over New Zealand, from Whangarei to Greymouth, so their deaths had an impact on the whole of New Zealand. Cave Creek itself is closest to Greymouth, and this region was arguably impacted the most. This is because Tai Toupini Polytechnic was also located in Greymouth. All of these students attended this polytechnic, leaving behind distraught friends. The community was shocked and immediately after the accident had to adapt in order to cater for the family members of the victims who were flying down to identify their children. This shock also extended out into the close-knit town of Punakaiki, close to Cave Creek. This was where Stephen O’Dea lived. He left behind an eight year old son when he died in the disaster. Survivors: Of those who survived, many were faced with tough challenges as they adapted to their changing lives. Sam Lucas was one of the four survivors and as a result of the Cave Creek disaster, he suffered from post-traumatic amnesia and has no memory of the actual event. He also suffered from head trauma and had knee and ligament damage. Survivor Carolyn Smith was also affected by the Cave Creek disaster. Afterwards, she suffered a mental breakdown and was taking antidepressants. She had also been on an invalid benefit to try to cope with what had happened. Stacy Mitchell also battled through life, starting to take drugs and rely on alcohol to forget the disaster and the emotions that came with it. Stacy Mitchell did not receive serious injuries, though his mental health deteriorated after the disaster. Stephen Hannen, like Sam Lucas, does not recall the disaster itself, however the Cave Creek disaster had a monumental affect on him- it left him a tetraplegic. He was heavily sedated for six weeks and spent 9 weeks more in an intensive care unit. After this, he spent a year in hospital in Christchurch as he learnt to deal with his injury and change in lifestyle. Law changes and Resignations: There were also changes and consequences surrounding the New Zealand laws. Prior to this disaster, there was a law in New Zealand which stated that Government departments could be exempt from prosecution for offences under the Building Act of 1991 and the Health and Safety Employment Act of 1992. After the Commission of Inquiry, this law was changed, though it didn’t occur until 2001, under the Labour Government. It meant that Government departments could be prosecuted and held criminally liable for insufficient building practices. Not only were laws changed as a result of the Cave Creek disaster, the Minister of Conservation at the time of the accident decided to resign. The Minister, Denis Marshall, chose not to resign immediately after the accident, and wanted to instead stay on as minster to help fix what caused the disaster. At first, Denis Marshall thought his resignation would not fix things, saying “my resignation would not be a remedy. My resignation would not bring these young people back to life.” However, on the 30th of May 1996, Denis Marshall resigned. He felt that he had done all he could do and said that “on ministerial responsibility, Ministers should, at the very least, publicly make themselves accountable and ensure that the errors will not occur again. I believe I have done that. I said in the House last November that I am profoundly sorry. Today I am taking a further step to express my sorrow for what happened that fateful day at Cave Creek.” The Department faced several inquiries after the Cave Creek disaster but nothing was done as they were exempt from legal action. Although suppressed from the media at the time, two of the top Wellington executives decided to offer the director of the Department of Conservation their resignations, although none of them had held positions long enough to have been a part of the Cave Creek disaster. This shows how much the guilt resulting from the disaster was playing on the mind of those employed by the Department of Conservation. Changing Policies: The Department of Conservation also changed their policies to help prevent another repeat of the Cave Creek disaster. Immediately after the collapse, 15 of the 106 viewing platforms were closed for repairs. The Department’s rangers and engineers walked 12,890 km along the tracks they maintained to catalogue each structure and write a report of their condition and the safety of the structure. In total, 520 structures were inspected and they continue to be inspected every few years by officers. (8) Viewing platforms above 1.5 meters, like the one at Cave Creek are checked annually as well. The Government learnt their lesson in terms of funding for the Department of Conservation. After the disaster, extra funding was allocated to the department to continue to upgrade the structures and tracks. Between 1997 and 2003, the Government spent $45 million on this. The Government also paid the families of the victims about $2.6 million in compensation, although they were not prosecuted and therefore not legally obliged to do so. Conclusion: Overall, the consequences and changes of the Cave Creek disaster were both positive and negative. Negative in the sense that it took the deaths of 14 people for the Government to wake up and change policies, but positive in the sense that this disaster highlighted major issues and concerns which were later fixed, leading to safer rules and regulations throughout the country. While these changes do not ensure a disaster like this is prevented in the future, they do ensure the risk is greatly reduced. Footnotes: 8.Ten Years On’ Updated 2005 www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/news/issues/archive/cave-creek/ten-years-on Visited 26 March 2013 9.HANSARD Parliamentary Debates, ‘Volume 551’ 10 October- 30 November 1995 Pg. 10026 1O.‘Story: Cabinet government’ updated 2013 http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/cabinet-government/page-6, visited 5th June 2013 |