2001/02 Financial review of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission

Transcription

1 2001/02 Financial review of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Contents Recommendation 2 Financial and Service Performance Management 2 Resourcing 2 TAIC s independence 4 Safety review 5 Appendix 7

2 Transport Accident Investigation Commission Recommendation The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has conducted the financial review of the 2001/02 performance and current operations of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission of New Zealand (TAIC) and recommends that the House take note of its report. Financial and Service Performance Management The Audit Office assessed all aspects of TAIC s financial and service performance management as operating at levels between good and excellent in 2001/02, on a fivepoint scale: not adequate, just adequate, satisfactory, good and excellent. The Audit Office made no suggestions for improvement in any area. We are pleased to see that TAIC has effective financial and service performance systems and controls in place. Resourcing Capacity to handle a major accident investigation TAIC told us it lacked sufficient staff to manage the investigation of any major accident that may occur at any time. 1 Although the Government has provided a $10 million guarantee that may be drawn upon in the event of a major accident, TAIC feels a sufficient number of trained and experienced investigators need to be ready and available, immediately a major accident occurs, to manage the critical initial stage of the investigation on a 24-hour-a-day basis if necessary. This work would include co-ordination of the investigation with emergency services, wreckage stabilisation and its recovery, seizure or quarantining of records at a number of sites and reading out of recorders. After the immediate response to a major accident, TAIC would need to seek local and overseas experts and co-ordinate them to form an ongoing investigation team. For example, investigators with the necessary expertise could be sought from the regulator and the transport operator concerned. TAIC told us its current staff number would be insufficient to effectively direct the various arms of an investigation team of significant size. If TAIC were not seen to be directing and controlling the special-purpose investigation team it had gathered from various organisations, TAIC believes the transport and tourist industry, global news media and victims would all be likely to question the independence and effectiveness of the investigation. 1 Response to supplementary questions from the Transport and Industrial Rrelations Committee, dated 4 February 2003, pp

3 TAIC told us that at some time New Zealand is likely to experience a major accident in its transport industry, possibly of at least the magnitude of the Ansett Dash 8 air accident in 1995 near Palmerston North. We would like to see TAIC given the opportunity to discuss the resource implications of such a scenario directly with the Government. High staff turnover in 2001/02 TAIC reported a staff turnover for 2001/02 of 50 percent. 2 In actual figures this translated to six staff leaving from a staff of 12.7 full-time staff equivalent positions. Three staff members resigned to move to better paid positions. The other three resigned for personal reasons unrelated to pay level issues. Three of those who left were accident investigators with specialist training and experience as well as high levels of operational experience in the transport field. 3 No further staff left during the second half of Effects of staff turnover Investigators need to have sufficient qualifications and operational experience to carry out TAIC s core function of determining the circumstances and causes of accidents and incidents with a view to avoiding similar occurrences in the future. TAIC told us its concerns with the 2001/02 staff turnover related to several factors: resulting loss of institutional knowledge workload placed on remaining staff to recruit new staff difficulty in recruiting new investigators with appropriate operational skills training workload on other staff. TAIC addressed these concerns by reprioritising work and seeking additional resources through the Ministry of Transport to improve staff retention and recruitment. The reprioritising of work resulted in TAIC being unable to meet its target for completing 90 percent of marine and aviation investigations within nine months. A backlog of cases continued to build as new investigators were recruited and trained. Current staff shortages In February 2003 TAIC reported to us that it is still understaffed in respect of rail investigators. One rail investigator, new to the staff, is still under training and an additional investigator is needed to manage the existing workload and respond to day-to-day requirements of rail accident and incident investigation. TAIC had put a case to the Ministry of Transport for additional funding for rail investigators and hoped to receive additional funding for this. TAIC is very concerned it must compete for funding with other entities through the Ministry of Transport. TAIC has no direct say in priorities for government spending on 2 Annual Report p Response to questions of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee dated 6 December 2002, pp

4 transport and no opportunity for discussion of its needs with The Treasury. Over the last five or so years the Ministry of Transport has supplied additional funding for necessary spending above budget during the financial year in order to avoid TAIC being in deficit at the end of the year. There have been many discussions with the Ministry of Transport over additional funding and TAIC constantly attempts to save money in various ways. TAIC is a small organisation and because of this every person is required to have a multifaceted role, each critical to its successful operation. Because of this, TAIC believes remuneration levels must be competitive in the marketplace. But TAIC told us the need to stay within budget, has sometimes meant it has been unable to recruit the best person for the job. We believe it could lead to a dangerous situation for an organisation such as TAIC not to be able to recruit the best person for a specialised accident investigation role and in fact it could erode the public s faith in any investigation if the person doing the investigation was not seen to be the best person for the job. We understand that TAIC is a small organisation whose effective performance relies on having a range of highly specialised investigative staff and that it experiences frustration in needing to present its case for specialist staff funding to the Government through the Ministry of Transport in competition with other transport entities having a variety of needs for resources. TAIC s independence Both in the 2001/02 annual report and briefing to the incoming minister TAIC advocated more financial and operational independence from both the Minister and the Ministry of Transport. TAIC stated that its independence is what enables it to: conduct an impartial review of the role of state agencies before or after the accident gain greater co-operation and so fuller information from those with concerns about punishment and liability, since TAIC cannot punish them and TAIC reports are not admissible as evidence against anyone safeguard sensitive information against use by others who may use that information to the detriment of witnesses. 4 TAIC told us that its independence had continued to be eroded over the last year. TAIC sees risks to the Government and to public confidence in accident investigation from conflicts of interest inherent in the current structure of reporting to the Minister through the Ministry of Transport where it is just one of a number of entities competing for government funding in the transport sector. To overcome this situation TAIC seeks to report directly to Parliament in which case it would be seen as independent of the government transport sector policy makers and regulators while still being subject to full accountability to the State. 5 4 Briefing to the incoming Minister of Transport, August Responses to supplementary questions of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, 4 February 2003, pp

5 We considered the issue of TAIC s independence in last year s financial review. We clarified that TAIC did not meet the criteria to become an Officer of Parliament as outlined by the Finance and Expenditure Committee in However, we did state: We maintain that TAIC should have more operational and financial independence. We believe quasi-judicial Crown entities such as TAIC should be given more independence than other Crown entities. We hope TAIC and the Ministry of Transport will examine this issue and review mechanisms that will allow TAIC to become more independent. We are disappointed that more progress does not seem to have been made on finalising this issue. Safety review TAIC has been involved in the Ministry of Transport s review of transport accident and incident investigation in New Zealand since its inception in July This has been done through consultation, by providing information both in the form of comments and submission, and also by responding to the Ministry s requests for additional information. While the review initially focused on aviation, it has recently been widened to all modes of transport, including road. We understand the Ministry of Transport has developed policy proposals for comment by the wider transport industry and consultation on these proposals should commence in December We believe TAIC s view should be considered thoroughly in the Ministry of Transport s safety review with the aim of maximising TAIC s ongoing contribution to transport safety and accident prevention in New Zealand. TAIC s view (set out in their response to supplementary questions of the committee, dated 4 Feb 2003) is that: Safety investigations should be conducted into all accidents and most incidents, rather than a small selection of each as is the case in New Zealand at present, due to budget and other constraints. TAIC should receive notification of new accidents and incidents directly from operators and others, rather than through the regulators, to improve the speed, accuracy and number of notifications to TAIC. The current system of reporting through the regulators slows reporting and may result in information not reaching TAIC where the regulator has not received notification. TAIC should analyse data on accidents and incidents to promote systems improvements, and conduct safety studies. TAIC should establish and operate a system for receiving confidential reports of incidents to elicit fuller information for analysis. The overlap of concurrent fatal accident investigation between coroners and TAIC should be removed to stop duplication and waste of resources. TAIC s statutory role 5

6 is to carry out investigation to prevent future accidents rather than to assign blame whereas at present some parties seek to use the coroners findings to make claims for compensation. TAIC did clarify to us that although its personnel often give evidence in court they do not prosecute cases so do not incur major court costs for TAIC. The committee acknowledges TAIC s views but has some concerns about the possible unnecessary duplication of investigation. The committee understands that the Ministry is currently reviewing procedures around accident investigation and reporting and looks forward to receiving that report on this in due course. 6

7 Appendix Approach to this financial review We met on 13 February 2003 and 1 May 2003 to consider the financial review of The Transport Accident Investigation Commission. Our review took 55 minutes. Evidence was heard from the Transport Accident Investigation Commission and advice was received from the Audit Office. Committee members Helen Duncan (Chairperson) Hon Roger Sowry (Deputy Chairperson) Peter Brown Deborah Coddington Hon Harry Duynhoven (to 25 March 2003) Dave Hereora (from 26 March 2003) John Key Lynne Pillay Hon Judith Tizard Mike Ward Evidence and advice received In addition to the 2001/02 annual report we considered the following evidence and advice during this financial review: briefing for the incoming Minister of Transport by Transport Accident Investigation Commission dated August responses to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee s questions, dated 3 December 2003, 4 February 2003 and 11 February 2003 and associated reports. Audit Office briefing report, dated 12 December