Community Impact and Leadership Key Learnings

April 29th, 2026

Hello Subscriber First Name,

April was a big month for my husband, Dave, and 100 other dads who joined forces to run in one of the Christchurch marathon events to support the incredible team at Full Bellies.

After three months of hard work and hitting the pavement at the crack of dawn, these dads have completed their run and raised over $160K for Full Bellies.

There are a huge number of children from Ōtautahi who go to school without lunch. Full Bellies jumps in here by supporting 26 local schools (making 1,400 lunches every week). Incredible mahi day in, day out from the team at Full Bellies and their generous sponsors (and hats off to the dads too).

Check out this video if you want to learn more about Full Bellies and the awesome work they do. Cool opportunity for your business to get behind or perhaps making lunches could be your next team building activity!!

Learnings from the Port of Auckland and the case against their former CEO

No doubt those of you leading safety critical workplaces will have been watching this case closely. It’s an important reminder that policies, processes and audits alone are not enough.

I really liked how Matt Jones from Advanced Safety reflected on the case and key learnings.

A Good CEO. An Extensive Safety Programme. A Criminal Conviction. What Gibson v Maritime New Zealand Means for Every NZ Executive and Director by Matt Jones  

On 30 August 2020, Pala'amo Kalati went to work at the Port of Auckland for the night shift. He was 31 years old and had worked at the port since April that year. He died when a shipping container struck him while he was lashing vessels on the MV Constantinos P.

He should have been outside the exclusion zone. Port of Auckland Limited (POAL) had a policy (the three-container width rule) that no person was to be within approximately 7.3 metres of an operating crane. Mr Kalati was inside that zone. The crane operator did not know he was there.

POAL pleaded guilty to failing to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure worker safety. Its CEO, Anthony Gibson, was separately charged under sections 44 and 48 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) for failing to exercise due diligence as an officer of the PCBU.

On 26 November 2024, following a seven-week judge-alone trial, Mr Gibson was found guilty.

On 31 March 2026, the High Court dismissed his appeal.

Gibson v Maritime New Zealand [2026] NZHC 813 is now the most important health and safety case in New Zealand's post-HSWA history. It is the first time a CEO of a large and complex PCBU has been convicted of failing to exercise due diligence under HSWA.

Every executive and director in this country needs to understand why it happened.

He Did Almost Everything Right

This is the part that most commentary gets wrong.

Anthony Gibson was not a reckless CEO. He was not indifferent to safety. He was not cutting corners on resources. The High Court went to considerable lengths to acknowledge what he actually did.

Under his leadership, POAL introduced:

• A specialist health and safety team of ten full-time employees

• External auditors and advisers

• Health and safety KPIs for general managers and senior managers

• The PortSafe computerised health and safety reporting system

• A fatigue management system

• Crane simulators for training purposes

• Mandatory health and safety leadership training

• 30 staff workshops per year, run personally by Mr Gibson, to seek feedback including on safety issues

• Pre-employment fitness testing and wellness initiatives

• An industry-first lash platform programme after Mr Gibson personally observed an unsafe practice and initiated a worldwide search for a safer solution

• Strategic alliances with other ports specifically including health and safety as a workstream

• A Health and Safety Steering Committee at board level

The court accepted that these initiatives "were positive and enhanced workplace health and safety." The prosecution's own expert acknowledged Mr Gibson was "dedicated, conscientious and diligent" - someone who "would be down at the container terminal at 2am if he thought there was a health and safety issue."

His board rated his COVID-19 leadership as exceptional. Frontline workers called him a "really good, good person." An independent governance expert rated him in the upper quartile of the many CEOs she had worked with.

And he was still convicted. His appeal was dismissed. His fine of $130,000 plus $60,000 in costs was upheld.

Why?

The Gap Between the System and the Ground

POAL had a documented safety system. It had the three-container width rule clearly identified as a critical control for load handling. It had shift briefings and gangway briefings. It had safety observations logged in PortSafe. It had Ship Supervisors conducting shift checks.

What it did not have was verification that any of it was actually working.

The exclusion zone policy existed on paper. On the ground, particularly on night shift, an established pattern of non-compliance had developed. Workers were routinely entering the exclusion zone. The safety observations being recorded were counting numbers - not catching behaviour. The checks being conducted were not effective at detecting what was actually happening.

Mr Gibson was monitoring whether observations were occurring. He was not verifying whether those observations were revealing the real picture.

This is the gap the court focused on. Work as imagined versus work as done. The two had diverged. And the divergence was not visible through the reporting systems Mr Gibson was relying on.

The Legal Principles That Will Shape NZ Governance

The High Court's analysis in this case establishes several principles that every officer of a PCBU in New Zealand should understand.

Principle 1: The duty is to take reasonable steps - not to guarantee outcomes.

Section 44 of HSWA requires an officer to exercise due diligence to ensure the PCBU complies with its duties. The duty is not to ensure that nothing ever goes wrong. It is to take the reasonable steps a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would take.

Principle 2: Good conduct in one area does not excuse a failure in another.

At paragraph [157], the court confirmed: "Reasonable conduct for the most part does not excuse unreasonable conduct in another part." The extensive positive programme Mr Gibson ran was genuinely relevant context. It was not a defence to the specific verification failures charged.

Principle 3: "Reasonable" does not mean average.

At paragraph [158], the court was clear that reasonable does not necessarily mean the average of what others would do. Common practice may or may not involve sufficient reasonable steps. The standard is objective - what would a reasonable officer have done in the same circumstances, not what most officers were doing at the time.

Principle 4: Obtaining credible information is a core duty.

Paragraph [162] of the judgment is the one that should be on the wall of every boardroom in New Zealand. The court confirmed, drawing on MNZ guidance for officers, that the due diligence obligation includes the need to "obtain credible information" and "follow up and challenge the information they are given where necessary."

The guidance the court cited is direct: directors and chief executives don't have to be experts in health and safety, but they do need to make a reasonable effort to understand what questions they need to ask. They need to put in place structured processes to ensure they meet their due diligence duty. They need to obtain credible information and follow up and challenge the information they are given where necessary. This is similar to the role that directors already play in tracking the financial performance of their companies.

Health and safety should be on an equal footing.

Principle 5: Verification is not someone else's job.

The court at paragraph [167] confirmed that while a board has an important role in strategic oversight, verification of operational matters (including monitoring and measuring reports of work as done) falls within management's purview. A CEO may be responsible at least at a supervisory level for verifying whether critical controls are actually functioning.

Mr Gibson was monitoring the number of safety observations. He was not verifying whether those observations were revealing real non-compliance with critical controls.

What This Means If You Are a CEO or Director Right Now

This case raises an uncomfortable question for every person sitting in a governance or executive role in New Zealand: if the information flowing to you is telling you your systems are working, how do you know that is true?

Mr Gibson received reports. He attended board meetings. He had KPIs. He had external auditors. He had a ten-person safety team. And none of it revealed that workers were routinely breaching the critical exclusion zone that was meant to keep them alive.

The court is not saying he should have been on night shift personally checking exclusion zones. It is saying he should have had processes in place to verify, with credible information that the control was working in practice. And that when he received information, he should have had the knowledge and the processes to challenge it.

That is a governance and management capability question. And it is one that the vast majority of NZ boards and executive teams have not yet answered properly.

Three Questions for Your Next Board Meeting

1. Can you verify that your critical controls are actually working - not just that the system says they are working?

Knowing that a control exists is not the same as knowing it is effective. Do you have a mechanism that shows you work as done rather than work as imagined?

2. Is the information you receive credible or is it what people know you want to hear?

Reporting systems tend to surface compliance and suppress non-compliance. What structures do you have in place to cut through that bias and surface the real picture?

3. Do you know what questions to ask to test what you are being told?

This is the deepest question the case raises. Mr Kahler, the prosecution expert, suggested POAL's board was not asking the right questions. Credible information does not just appear. It is built through purposeful inquiry by people who understand what they are looking for and why.

The Benchmark Has Been Set

Gibson v Maritime New Zealand is not a story about a bad CEO or a negligent organisation. It is a story about a well-intentioned, genuinely committed leader whose verification systems were not adequate to detect a critical gap between policy and practice.

That is a story that could be told about a significant number of New Zealand organisations right now. I know this first hand as my team and I unpack this for businesses on a regular basis when we deliver our executive finding reports to boards and ELTs.

The legal standard is clear. Officers must take reasonable steps to verify that their critical controls are working. They must obtain credible information. They must challenge what they are told where necessary. And doing many things right does not protect them if they have failed to take the specific steps the law requires in relation to a specific critical risk.

The High Court has confirmed this. The benchmark is set.

The question now is whether your board and your executive team are ready to meet it.

Gibson v Maritime New Zealand [2026] NZHC 813 - High Court of New Zealand, Gault J, judgment delivered 31 March 2026.

Thank you to Matt Jones for allowing us to include his reflections in our newsletter so we can all benefit.

Coming Up: Pink Shirt Day. Get your pink outfits ready!

Friday 15 May is Pink Shirt Day. Pink Shirt Day is all about reducing bullying by celebrating diversity in all its forms and supporting schools, workplaces, and communities to be safe, supportive, welcoming, and inclusive.

Why is it important?

Did you know that 1 in 5 workers has frequently experienced bullying behaviour over the past 12 months, and a staggering 84% have faced cyber abuse. These statistics are staggering! And really disappointing! Every individual deserves to feel safe and supported in their workplace.

And horrifically, New Zealand has the third highest rate of school bullying among 36 OECD countries!

So, what can we do to foster a healthier environment for future generations? Here are some actionable steps you can prioritise in your workplace:

1. Leadership Matters: Integrate Inclusive Leadership into your Recruitment, Performance Management, Leadership Development, and Talent and Succession planning practices.  Let us know if we can support you refine your processes to ensure you recruit and advance individuals who model inclusive leadership 
   

2. Embrace Diversity: A diverse team isn’t just a powerful asset for problem solving and creativity; it also cultivates a more inclusive, respectful workplace.
   

3. Communicate Effectively: Regular 1:1 meetings and clear communication can enhance understanding and help manage workloads effectively.
   

4. Implement Clear Reporting Processes: Ensure there are straightforward procedures for reporting and managing complaints.
   

5. Update Policies: Regularly review your Anti-Harassment, Discrimination, and Bullying policies to ensure they are relevant to today’s digital landscape.
   

6. Educate Your Team: Provide training on recognising and addressing bullying and harassment, encouraging everyone to be active Upstanders in the workplace.

And last but not least, support Pink Shirt Day today! There are some brilliant resources available at https://pinkshirtday.org.nz/resources/workplace-toolkit.

Please reach out if we can support your organisation’s efforts to create an inclusive workplace and proactively prevent workplace bullying.

Wishing you all a productive and successful month ahead! With the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, along with supply and cost pressures, things remain quite unpredictable. I hope you and your teams can navigate the upcoming month or two as smoothly as possible.

As always, please feel free to reach out if we can assist with any of your workplace initiatives or projects - 021 052 6964 or email kate.walker@delosconsulting.co.nz.

Thanks for partnering with Delos Consulting!

Kate and the Delos Consulting team.