Cave Creek Disaster - The Commission of Inquiry

The Commission of Inquiry

A Commission of Inquiry into the accident, headed by District Judge Graeme Noble, highlighted a number of serious concerns with the Department of Conservation's construction of the platform. Specific concerns that were raised included:

• The platform had not been designed or approved by a qualified engineer.
• None of the people involved in building the platform were qualified engineers.
• Nails were used to secure the platform instead of bolts (as intended by the design), because an appropriate drill had not been taken to the building site.
• The steps to the platform, which were supposed to be attached as a counterweight, had not been properly attached.
• A Building Consent had never been obtained for the platform. By the time this was realised, the plans had been lost and replacement (and incorrect) schematics were hastily drawn by an unqualified volunteer exchange student so as to lodge a retrospective application. Further confusion about the Building Act then resulted in the consent never being lodged.
• The platform was not listed in any register that would have resulted in regular inspections.
• A warning sign for the platform, suggesting a maximum limit of five people, had been ordered but was never installed at the site.

Besides the specific flaws in the actual platform and methods of its construction, the Commission said the "root causes" of the collapse were systemic problems in the Department as a whole, noting that the Department was seriously under-funded and under-resourced. The Commission found that the Department had not been given sufficient resources to meet its requirements without "cutting corners", and was frequently forced to accept poor quality standards due to its lack of funding. The report of the Commission concluded that given the department's state, "a tragedy such as Cave Creek was almost bound to happen".

Ten years after the accident, survivor Stacy Mitchell said that he and some other students were shaking the platform hard when it collapsed, which he'd not reported at the time through fear of being blamed. It's unlikely that knowledge of the shaking would have changed the outcome of the inquiry due to other evidence and conclusions, including evidence to indicate that the platform should have been designed and built to tolerate use that could reasonably be expected.