Safety audits are often treated as a compliance tick box exercise. When done properly, they are a tool that provides valuable insight and assurance about the system as well as effectively identifying gaps so you can improve controls. Ultimately, they are part of a system that works to reduce the risk of serious harm within a business.
External checks provide an independent assessment, and the real value lies in going beyond the team that designed or manages the system. External specialists bring technical expertise, and the ability to identify gaps or risks that may have been normalised or overlooked internally.
Simply put, you don’t know what you don’t know.
The High Court appeal decision of Gibson v Maritime NZ [2026] NZHC 813 highlighted the importance of making sure audit report corrective actions are actioned. Mr Gibson failed in exercising due diligence because, at a system or governance level, he did not connect the various threads of information and keep accountability within the system. Examples included:
A safety audit finding recommending specific critical risk reviews were not tracked and closed out.
Initiatives to improve safety ended without interim control measures to manage gaps while long term solutions were developed.
Weaknesses in reporting compared to actual work practices were highlighted but not systematically addressed.
Ultimately, while Mr Gibson was described as conscientious and focussed on improving safety, those efforts did not outweigh or address a gap in the key area of the identified critical risk of working near or under suspended loads. This is consistent with many safety failures which occur not because organisations ignore risk, but because:
Controls are assumed to be adequate because nothing has gone wrong – yet (“we’ve always done it this way”)
“Work as imagined” at management or board level differs significantly from “work as done”
Independent verification challenges these assumptions. It provides objective insight into the real state of your system and is fundamental to defensible compliance and effective risk management.
Not all external checks provide the level of assurance organisations believe they do. Courts have repeatedly criticised reliance on safety audits or inspections that were superficial or not designed to assess legal compliance.
In Maritime NZ v Gibson [2024] NZDC 27975, in the District Court, Judge Bonnar highlighted that reliance on an ACC Accredited Employer Programme audit did not assist the defence of the CEO. The audit was a high-level review that did not test legislative compliance. The key issue wasn’t that an external check occurred, it was that its purpose and limitations were misunderstood.
A similar lesson emerged in Southern Pallet Recycling Limited v WorkSafe NZ [2022] NZHC 1042.
In this case, a worker suffered a serious amputation while operating a ‘rise and fall’ saw. The company argued that a prior WorkSafe inspection, which specifically noted machinery was “guarded well”, should result in the charges being dismissed.
The court rejected this argument. The inspection was brief, and a routine regulatory visit was never intended to replace specialist verification. The judge emphasised that a general inspection does not override expert engineering advice.
Critically, the case highlighted two common misunderstandings:
The scope of an external inspection
The competence and qualifications required for specialist assurance
For example, machinery guarding assessments require auditors with appropriate engineering expertise, such as CMSE or CPEng qualifications. General “machine experts” may not provide the level of assurance organisations believe they are receiving. Similarly, health and safety systems audits or reviews should be carried out by people with the training, experience and competence to do so to the standard you are expecting from them.
Organisations need to understand and be clear on:
What their current safety audits actually assess
What they do not cover
Where specialist expertise is required
At Findex, we help organisations navigate these safety complexities. We provide system-level reviews and identify where specialist verification is required. We can review scopes, audit reports and ensure that you are getting the information you need to improve your safety system at a strategic and operational level.
Done well, external safety verification does more than tick a box. It reduces risk, strengthens systems, and most importantly, provides another step in helping ensure workers go home safe at the end of the day.
Disclaimer:
Findex NZ Limited trading as Findex.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the thought or position of Findex.
The title 'Partner' conveys that the person is a senior member within their respective division and is among the group of persons who hold an equity interest (shareholder) in its parent entity, Findex Group Limited. The only professional service offering which is conducted by a partnership is external audit, conducted via the Crowe Australasia external audit division and Unison SMSF Audit. All other professional services offered by Findex Group Limited are conducted by a privately-owned organisation and/or its subsidiaries.
See our disclosure information on our website Disclaimer and Disclosure (findex.co.nz)
Find an office