Attachment 1: Findings of our review of Operation Respect’s new strategy and plan

Review of Operation Respect’s Strategy and Plan.

Background

  1. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) launched Operation Respect in 2016 after a series of reviews found that inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour was a problem in the organisation. Operation Respect’s objectives are to prevent inappropriate and harmful behaviour from occurring and to ensure that NZDF has appropriate systems and processes to deal with this behaviour when it does happen.1
  2. The Ministry of Defence commissioned an independent review of Operation Respect. That review was completed in 2020, and it recommended that the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) audit NZDF’s progress in meeting Operation Respect’s objectives every two years for the next 20 years. NZDF requested the support of the OAG in monitoring its progress.
  3. In 2021, we commenced a long-term audit programme of Operation Respect. Our work has two components. These are:
    • performance audits that focus on NZDF’s progress; and
    • regular collection of prevalence data to monitor the effect of NZDF’s actions and whether NZDF is achieving Operation Respect’s outcomes over time.
  4. We published our first two reports in March 2023; our first audit report and a monitoring report which established a baseline for measuring NZDF’s progress over time.

The findings and recommendations of our 2023 reports

  1. The focus of our first audit report was on how well NZDF had reset Operation Respect after the independent review in 2020. We found that certain aspects of NZDF’s initial response to addressing these issues after the 2020 review were not sufficient. Although we saw genuine willingness to change, we also found that NZDF did not have a clear strategy. This meant that NZDF did not always target its actions at the right issues.
  2. NZDF was aware that its initial response was not enough and started developing a new strategy and plan for Operation Respect during our first audit. Operation Respect is fundamental to the military’s operational effectiveness, but NZDF had not clearly explained this to its people. NZDF needed to establish a clear and shared vision of what a safe, respectful, and inclusive organisation looks like, why it matters to NZDF’s success, and what needs to change to make it happen.
  3. We made 11 recommendations. These covered outcomes and objectives, strategy and planning, governance and management, the complaints and discipline system, communications, and data and information.

The next phase of our audit programme

  1. Since we completed our first audit, NZDF has developed a new strategy and action plan and increased resourcing for Operation Respect. Given that NZDF has only recently completed this work, the Chief of Defence Force asked us to carry out targeted work to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Providing feedback at this stage will allow NZDF to make any necessary adjustments to its work at the early stages of implementation.
  2. The question we looked to answer in this review was how well Operation Respect’s new strategy and plan have set the organisation up to meet the programme’s objectives of creating a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment.
  3. We looked at whether:
    • the new strategy makes a clear, evidence-based case for change;
    • there is a plan for how Operation Respect will be implemented and achieve the desired changes;
    • the plan has enough resourcing and mechanisms for measuring, monitoring, and evaluating progress; and
    • NZDF’s initial planning for changes to the response system aligns with the goals and objectives of Operation Respect.
  4. We did not look at NZDF’s governance of Operation Respect. Our 2025 performance audit will address this.
  5. To carry out this review, we examined documents about the new strategy and plan, and NZDF’s work on improving the response system.2 We also conducted 15 interviews with NZDF personnel. These personnel were either in the core Operation Respect team or worked in roles that supported the strategy’s implementation.
  6. We plan on carrying out a full performance audit next year, which we expect to begin in May 2025. This is likely to focus on NZDF’s implementation of, and its leadership’s commitment to, Operation Respect.

Main findings

  1. To meet the challenges of the 21st century, NZDF needs to attract and retain people with a wide range of skills and perspectives. Creating safe and cohesive teams is fundamental to this.
  2. Operation Respect’s new strategy provides a clear vision for change that focuses on building safe and cohesive teams. The work NZDF has done is a significant improvement on its previous approach. NZDF is using lessons from the past implementation to plan its future programme of work.
  3. However NZDF needs more detailed implementation planning for the programme if it is to effectively sequence, co-ordinate, and monitor multiple work streams. This will support effective governance of the programme and ensure that NZDF gets the most benefit from the activities it is implementing. NZDF is aware of this, and work is underway.
  4. The investment and priority NZDF has provided for Operation Respect following our 2023 audit has put the programme on the right path to succeed. Trust in NZDF’s commitment to this work is increasing in the organisation. However, current resourcing is at risk, and there is uncertainty about future resourcing. NZDF will be able to sustain the progress it has made only if Operation Respect remains a priority.
  5. We set out the key findings from our work in five areas. These are:
    • Operation Respect’s new strategy;
    • improvements to the response system;
    • implementation planning;
    • monitoring and measuring progress; and
    • resourcing Operation Respect.

Operation Respect’s new strategy

  1. NZDF has reset Operation Respect’s direction. It has produced a comprehensive strategy for change and is now rolling this out.

NZDF has identified what it needs to create long-term, sustainable change, and it has invested the resources needed to achieve this

  1. In 2022, NZDF contracted an expert in harm reduction and organisational change to help develop a new strategy and action plan for Operation Respect. From the start, the new strategy and plan were conceived of as a long-term commitment. This is an important shift in thinking.
  2. The Operation Respect team developed an outcomes framework, an implementation plan, and a monitoring, evaluation, and learning framework. They used evidence of what works to prevent harmful behaviour in military environments and the findings of our 2023 reports to develop these. It also consulted with relevant parts of NZDF, including through a working group made up of representatives from the three services and the civilian workforce. Collectively, these documents present an evidence-based and robust approach to change.
  3. In October 2023, a business case for Operation Respect was approved. This provided the resources to implement the first phase of the project until 2026. The bulk of this funding was for new permanent and fixed-term roles, including a new programme lead (at Colonel level), organisational development expertise, and data specialists. The new programme lead has been in place since January 2024.
  4. This was a significant increase in resourcing for the programme, which previously had only two positions.

NZDF now has an evidence-based strategy that focuses on addressing inappropriate and harmful behaviour and that makes a clear case for why Operation Respect matters for NZDF to succeed

  1. In our 2023 performance audit report, we recommended that NZDF develop a strategy for Operation Respect. We said it needed to be underpinned by clear objectives setting out how having a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment will support operational effectiveness.
  2. In June 2024, Operation Respect’s new strategy was released to all NZDF personnel. The new strategy has a vision to “grow a culture of safe and cohesive teams”. It makes a clear case for how having safe and cohesive teams supports operational effectiveness.Work went into ensuring that the strategy is underpinned by a vision that would resonate with personnel.
  3. Personnel we spoke to felt that previous iterations of the work did not have clear and consistent messaging. Although we only spoke to a small number of personnel, we heard that the new vision of safe and cohesive teams resonated with them. They also expected it to resonate with personnel in their services.
  4. NZDF has kept a clear focus on addressing inappropriate and harmful behaviour. In our 2023 audit report, we encouraged NZDF to do this. We had seen evidence that it was framing Operation Respect as a more generic programme about changing culture and building respect. We were concerned that Operation Respect would lose its focus on identifying and addressing risks related to harmful behaviour.
  5. The new strategy clearly focuses the work on addressing harmful behaviour. This was evident in documents we saw and discussions we had with NZDF personnel.
  6. In our view, the new messaging provides the right balance between setting an aspirational vision about operational effectiveness and making a clear case for how the ongoing prevalence of inappropriate and harmful behaviour is a barrier to achieving that vision.

NZDF should ensure that it is clear what it means by safe and cohesive teams and what the drivers of harmful behaviour are

  1. We identified several areas that we think NZDF should emphasise as it rolls its messaging out. In our 2023 audit report, we said that NZDF needed to clearly describe what a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment looks like to personnel in their everyday work.
  2. Although we have been told that the new messaging of safe and cohesive teams resonates with personnel, individuals can still have different ideas about what a cohesive team is. Strong team cohesion norms can create risks if they make it harder for personnel to raise issues about inappropriate and harmful behaviour.
  3. We understand from NZDF’s messaging that a cohesive team is one where personnel work together and draw on people’s different strengths. These teams perform more effectively. It is important that NZDF communicates this clearly. This includes communicating that having a team where personnel can call out behaviour also makes the team stronger.
  4. In communicating about the Operation Respect strategy, NZDF should also make sure that personnel understand the risks for inappropriate and harmful behaviour and how to manage them. There are a range of risks for harmful behaviours that are both external and internal to NZDF. For example, elements of the military environment can create risks, such as hierarchical structures and fluid boundaries between personnel’s work and personal lives. However, these risks can be managed.
  5. We did not see specific messaging about this in the strategy or related documents but we were told that NZDF is now working to ensure that personnel understand these risks and the link between individual safety, team cohesion, and operational effectiveness. This is important as without this understanding, perceptions that harmful behaviour is the fault of a few “bad eggs” or only a problem of wider society might persist. This is not conducive to encouraging collective ownership and action.

Improvements to the response system

  1. NZDF is making changes to the response system that have the potential to build trust in reporting if implemented in a co-ordinated way.

Improving the response system is a core activity in Operation Respect’s strategy

  1. In our 2023 audit report, we recommended that NZDF prioritise improving the complaints and discipline systems. We found that personnel did not always trust these systems. This was especially so when they did not see people being held accountable for causing harm or feel that the right options for them to raise and report inappropriate and harmful behaviour were available.
  2. NZDF now has a clear vision for what the response system should look like, and it is making changes to many of its core internal policies. In our interviews, personnel talked about the need for trauma-informed and people-centred approaches that hold people accountable while also helping to rehabilitate and prevent further harm.3 There was recognition that this was needed for personnel to have trust in systems and processes.
  3.  NZDF has five pieces of work in this area under way:
    • Amendments to the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 will make changes to how serious, complex, or sensitive offending is dealt with. This includes sexual offending. Decisions about whether to lay a charge will be moved out of the chain of command to the Director of Military Prosecutions. This was approved by Cabinet, and legislative drafting instructions have been issued to the Parliamentary Council Office. The amendments are expected to be enacted in 2025.
    • A revised military complaints process and a new complaints unit within Defence Legal Services are being set up. Uniformed personnel will soon report complaints to a complaints officer rather than through the chain of command. There will be more resolution pathways, including informal resolution as a first option. The revised draft policy that sets out the new process is nearly finalised. The complaints unit should be in operation in 2025.
    • A revised Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy for uniformed and civilian personnel is being prepared. It is expected to introduce new reporting pathways and provide clearer guidance on informal resolution options.
    • A revised Harmful Sexual Behaviour Disclosure and Response Policy is being prepared that will set out how personnel can report and receive support for harmful sexual behaviour. It is expected to include ways to increase the control the person affected by harmful behaviour has over how they report and receive support. For example, there is a proposal to remove the “duty to report”.4 There was concern that this has acted as a barrier to personnel seeking support when they experience harmful behaviour. The policy will also introduce:
      • A “no wrong door” approach, where all health personnel will be trained to receive disclosures of harmful sexual behaviour.
      • New pathways for personnel who have used harmful behaviour, or who feel they might be at risk of behaving in a way that causes harm, to access specialist interventions.   
    • A new historical complaints process sets out how NZDF will respond to historical complaints of harmful sexual behaviour.

The revised policies will create more opportunities for personnel affected by harmful behaviour to have choice and control over how behaviour is dealt with and for further harm to be prevented

  1. The reporting processes described in the revised draft policies and through changes to the Act will introduce more independence and provide more choices on whether to formally report harmful behaviour. This can help give personnel a sense of control.  
  2. The new complaints unit, the changes to the Act on serious, complex, or sensitive offending, and clarification that there is no legal duty to report will also introduce more independence to these processes.
  3. NZDF is also looking at ways to balance providing personnel with choice and control over how their case is managed with the organisation’s duty of care to all personnel. For example, NZDF is considering introducing a process where a group can be convened to identify risk mitigations in situations where somebody has experienced harmful sexual behaviour and does not want it investigated, but not doing so poses significant risks to the individual or others. In these situations, the group could decide that the risk can be managed or that other actions are needed, such as recommending that command make changes to a deployment.
  4. There has also been a shift in the revised draft Complaints Policy, Harmful Sexual Behaviour Policy, and Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy to prioritise early intervention and informal resolution options. In our 2023 audit report, we found that personnel sometimes did not want to report non-criminal harmful behaviour because they were worried that the repercussions for the person responsible would be too severe. Alternative and more informal resolution options should help to increase trust in reporting and support early intervention to prevent behaviours from escalating.
  5. Some of the revised draft policies also include provisions that support a more prevention-focused approach. For example, one of the informal options in the Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy is to review the culture of the work unit where the behaviour occurred to identify any issues contributing to harm.
  6. The revised draft Complaints Policy and the Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy also have provisions to encourage behaviour change. For example, they both require follow up with the person who made the complaint to check whether they are satisfied with the outcome and whether the behaviour has ceased.
  7. This has the potential to better protect victims while also providing useful information for monitoring, such as how effective different interventions are. For this to happen, it is important that this follow-up has clear time frames. Follow-up is needed after both formal and informal resolution options have been used to confirm that the behaviour has ceased and that there have been no negative repercussions for the person experiencing the harmful behaviour. NZDF told us it will ensure that all policies, including behaviour dealt with through the Act, will have similar processes to the extent practical.

Further work is needed to ensure that personnel understand how to report and access support for all forms of inappropriate and harmful behaviour

  1. Response policies need to be clear about how personnel can report and access support for all forms of inappropriate and harmful behaviour. The revised draft Harmful Sexual Behaviour Policy makes it clear how personnel can access internal and external support for all forms of inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour. This expands the existing policy which only covers harmful sexual behaviour that reaches a criminal threshold.
  2. In our 2023 audit report, we highlighted that NZDF needed to provide clearer information about the processes for reporting non-criminal harmful sexual behaviour. The revised draft Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy provides the process for both civilian and uniformed personnel to report non-criminal harmful sexual behaviour (harmful sexual behaviour that does not reach the threshold for offences under the Act).
  3. Although a form of this policy was in place during our first audit, our impression is that it was not always understood as covering non-criminal harmful sexual behaviour. Communication about the revised policies will be key to their success. We discuss this further in paragraphs 54-56.
  4. There are still gaps in how personnel can access support for bullying. NZDF is planning useful work for its Anti-Harassment Advisor network. In our view, it is important that NZDF also consider what specialist support services personnel affected by bullying, harassment, and discrimination might need. Our 2023 performance audit found that this was unclear. We consider that this is still the case and that it remains a priority.
  5. NZDF told us it has plans to address this gap by ensuring that all health staff are trained to receive disclosures of all forms of inappropriate and harmful behaviour and that personnel will have access to specialist external support where necessary. In our view, NZDF should also ensure that managers and commanding officers have access to specialist support and advice when intervening in any cases of bullying, harassment and discrimination, including informal interventions.

NZDF has started work to align the draft policies

  1. Having clear and easy to understand reporting and support pathways is a challenge in NZDF because different processes are needed for civilian and uniformed personnel, and because it uses the military justice system for some offences. Therefore it is particularly important that NZDF aligns these policies much as possible, to make them easy to navigate.
  2. Defence Legal Services are now responsible for the development of all relevant policies and are currently ensuring they are aligned, where it is practical and appropriate to do so.
  3. As they progress this work, we recommend that NZDF consider the following:
    • The principles underpinning the policies should be consistent to the extent possible. For example, the draft revised Complaints Policy has a detailed section about using tikanga Māori that is not in the draft revised Harmful Sexual Behaviour policy and not consistently described in the draft revised Bullying, Harassment and Discrimination policy.
    • The definitions of inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour need to be consistent. The draft revised Harmful Sexual Behaviour Policy and the Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy currently use different terminology. For example, the Harmful Sexual Behaviour Policy uses a traffic light system to categorise behaviours, but the Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy does not, even though they define similar behaviours. It would also be helpful to place the definitions within a military context, especially for bullying behaviours, so the line between bullying and expected military command and discipline is clearer.
    • Where possible, reporting pathways should align. For example, it is not clear how the investigation pathways outlined in the draft revised Harmful Sexual Behaviour Policy and the draft revised Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy interact. The Harmful Sexual Behaviour Policy lists investigation options for “yellow” and “orange” behaviours, but it does not include the process set out in the Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy as an option, even though “yellow” and “orange” behaviours are often forms of bullying, harassment, and discrimination. It is also important that the alignment between the reporting pathways in the Complaints Policy and the Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy is clear – in particular, how the new complaints unit will be used for reports made under the Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination Policy.
    • It would be helpful if informal and alternative resolution options and possible disciplinary outcomes, were consistently described. It is not always clear whether these are the same or different options, especially in descriptions of informal and alternative resolution options.

NZDF has started work to ensure there is clear communication, guidance, and training for leaders when rolling out these policies

  1. It is important for NZDF to give careful thought to how it communicates these policies. We were told that Defence Legal Services will be responsible for communication of these policies, including providing training and information for leaders, and that this work is under way.
  2. In our view, NZDF needs to provide guidance about the policies and processes so that personnel affected by harmful behaviour can easily understand the different support and reporting options that apply to them. We heard that NZDF plans to do user-testing of these policies before they are finalised to ensure that all personnel can understand them.
  3. Leaders and managers will play an important role in the use of these policies. To do this, they need to have a good understanding of the behaviours they cover, the support and reporting options available, and their roles in these processes. This includes in early intervention and informal resolution.

Implementation planning

  1. NZDF is focusing on activities that have the potential to bring about lasting change. Robust implementation planning for the programme is needed given its complexity, duration, and organisation-wide impact. This will help ensure the work is well co-ordinated. NZDF is aware of this and work is under way.

NZDF is prioritising activities to create the foundation for long-term change and is using lessons from past experiences to design and implement these activities

  1. The new strategy sets out four lines of effort that activities will focus on. These are:
    • proactive leadership;
    • instilling positive social and gender norms;
    • creating supportive work and living environments; and
    • improving data and the response system.
  2. In our 2023 audit report, we recommended that NZDF create a strategy and action plan based around the levers known to influence norms and behaviours. This included leadership development, training and education, career and talent management, safe physical and social environments, and the response system.
  3. We said that NZDF would not be able to target all these areas at once. Our recommendation was for NZDF to prioritise work on the complaints and discipline system and on improving its data and information management.
  4. NZDF is focusing its initial efforts on the response system (which includes the complaints and discipline system as set out in paragraphs 35-56), improving its data and information management, and creating safe work and living environments. It also plans to do work on leadership development, and career and talent management. These are sensible priorities.
  5. We outline below our assessment of NZDF’s planned activities and the areas it should consider as it implements these activities.

NZDF has prioritised work on improving its data and information management

  1. NZDF’s planned work on improving its data and information management has two components. The first is to carry out a current state analysis to identify the data that it collects and develop a plan for how it can collect and use data and information more effectively. The second is to use existing data better while it develops the plan.

NZDF is planning a new approach to defence area plans that builds on lessons from the previous roll-out and is designed to work in a military environment

  1. An initial focus of Operation Respect’s strategy is developing defence area plans for all defence areas, including camps, bases, ships, and civilian environments. It plans to work with all defence areas to identify and implement activities that will help to reduce harm and build safe and cohesive working and living environments.
  2. In this work, we can see a clear relationship between Operation Respect’s vision and its practical application in the workplace. This should make the link between preventing harmful behaviour and improving operational effectiveness clearer for personnel.
  3. The Operation Respect team has started by engaging with senior leaders, such as service chiefs. They will then engage with leadership teams on all camps, bases, and ships to generate buy-in and find out what support they need.  When this is complete, defence area plans will be designed through a series of structured workshops with personnel, including those in junior ranks, senior ranks, and in specialist roles such as Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Advisors (SAPRAs), social workers, and chaplains.
  4. Personnel we spoke to supported this approach. The Operation Respect team is engaging with all levels of leadership. This includes the middle tier of leadership who play a key role in successfully implementing culture change initiatives. They help translate the high-level vision into practical application. In our view, engaging with all levels of leadership will help leaders to understand why this work matters and what they need to do to lead it.
  5. We did not hear of much consultation with junior personnel in the development of the Operation Respect vision and strategy. The defence area plan work provides an opportunity for junior personnel to provide input into developing Operation Respect activities.  
  6. We have seen more co-ordination between the Operation Respect team and the three services than in our previous audit. Each of the services spoke positively about the work and said that they have worked closely with the Operation Respect team to ensure they use an approach that will work well for their service.
  7. The Operation Respect team has thought carefully about how to ensure that defence areas are provided with enough direction and guidance to develop effective plans while still having the flexibility to adapt the approach to their circumstances. The Operation Respect team is providing support by running workshops, providing templates with ideas for activities, and providing monitoring support.
  8. Defence areas have the flexibility to design plans that are relevant to their context, including their size and accountability structures. This includes having a plan for defence areas and plans for individual units or teams. For example, we heard that there will likely be a plan for the different navy vessels as they each have their own culture. In Army, there will likely be a plan for the largest Army unit and then plans for smaller units sitting below that. In smaller camps or bases with clear accountability lines, there might be only one defence area plan.
  9. This flexibility is important but, in our view, it would also be beneficial for NZDF to identify any standard activities or focus areas that should be implemented across all defence areas. NZDF told us it plans to do this. This should ensure that consistent standards are applied across all areas. For example, one person we spoke to said they saw the defence area work as an opportunity to provide a consistent approach to talking about “above the line” and “below the line” behaviours. In paragraphs 96-100 we discuss how this work could be coordinated with the release of the new response system policies. Consistency in alcohol policies would also be beneficial, which we discuss in paragraphs 85–89.
  10. NZDF also told us that it plans to use the findings from the defence area plan workshops to identify initiatives or activities that would best be led at a service or organisational level.
  11. The process for developing the plans could also help leaders to better understand the risks and protective factors for inappropriate and harmful behaviour in their work areas. The Operation Respect team is providing camps, bases, and ships with data about inappropriate and harmful behaviour on their site. NZDF told us it is also planning to ensure that leaders receive training and guidance to better understand the specific harmful behaviour risks and protective factors in their work environments. This is important to ensure they can properly direct activities at addressing these risks.
  12. Accountability is crucial. NZDF told us it is considering having all relevant commanding officers’ performance expectations require that they complete and implement a defence area plan. 

NZDF plans to carry out work on physical infrastructure, but funding for this is uncertain

  1. Having physical infrastructure that supports safe environments is fundamental to Operation Respect’s success. This has been an ongoing area of work for NZDF. In our 2023 audit report, we suggested that NZDF develop clear guidance on how to create safe and respectful physical environments – for example, by setting out what minimum standards are for physical infrastructure, such as accommodation.
  2. NZDF plans to improve physical infrastructure through the Safer Spaces project. This work is part of Operation Respect but is led by Defence Estate and Infrastructure. The project involves developing policy that will set standards for infrastructure and a risk assessment framework to prioritise infrastructure upgrades. This appears to be a sensible approach.
  3. We heard that, although this work is one of the programme’s priority areas, its progress has been stalled because of funding constraints. We discuss resourcing in paragraphs 116-123.

NZDF is planning work on leadership development and career management  

  1. NZDF intends to carry out work on leadership development, training and education, and career management. This work is in planning stages. It is important that there is a clear plan to ensure this work is prioritised. Leadership capability will be fundamental to Operation Respect’s success.
  2. In our 2023 audit report, we said that NZDF needed to do more work on setting out the capabilities leaders need to support Operation Respect and the training and education they need to develop these capabilities. These are important levers for change.
  3. NZDF initially secured resource for a fixed-term employee to lead work improving its leadership development system. We understand it can no longer access this resource (we discuss resourcing in paragraphs 116-123), but we were told that Operation Respect driven activities in leadership development are progressing using existing resourcing.
  4. NZDF has a well-developed leadership framework that covers the behaviour and competencies that personnel at all levels of the organisation need. The Institute for Leader Development5 delivers training related to the leadership framework. The Operation Respect team plans to identify whether the behaviour statements in the leadership framework adequately cover what each leadership level needs to support the prevention of, and response to, harmful behaviour.  
  5. The Operation Respect team will then identify any additional training and education that can be delivered through the Institute for Leader Development. The team told us that, although wider training and education will be required, this is where they will start.
  6. We understand that NZDF also has work planned on career development, including performance management and reporting, and career and promotion decisions. At this stage, it is not known what the focus will be. It is important that NZDF progresses this work. We discuss sequencing of activities further in paragraphs 101-104.

NZDF is going to integrate its work on alcohol harm minimisation into Operation Respect, but planning for this is in its early stages

  1. Because a high proportion of incidents of unwanted sexual activity have a connection to alcohol, NZDF has decided to integrate aspects of the Operation STAND6 work programme into Operation Respect.
  2. NZDF had only recently made this decision when we carried out our review and does not yet have a plan for how it would integrate the Operation STAND work into Operation Respect. Therefore, we cannot comment in detail about the risks and benefits of this approach. We offer several reflections based on our previous audit and encourage NZDF to consider these as it progresses this work.
  3. We anticipate that most of NZDF’s work on minimising alcohol harm will be incorporated into defence area planning. The availability of alcohol is a key factor in harmful behaviour.
  4. Camp and base commanders, and commanding officers on ships, decide where and when alcohol is permitted. It will be important that camp and base commanders have clear guidance setting out the potential implications of different approaches to alcohol availability (for example, whether it is allowed in barracks) so they can make informed decisions about alcohol policy.
  5. In the past, we heard about potential initiatives to change norms about alcohol, such as having more spaces to socialise without alcohol. It will be important that defence area plans that include activities to minimise alcohol harm still have enough focus on other drivers of inappropriate and harmful behaviour. Changing alcohol practices on their own will not prevent all inappropriate and harmful behaviour. Continued access to expertise will support an evidence-based approach.

Operation Respect is a long-term strategy with multiple lines of effort, and NZDF needs a clear implementation plan to co-ordinate the different programmes of work and sequence activities effectively

NZDF is setting up programme management for Operation Respect, but implementation planning needs further development

  1. The Operation Respect programme lead started in January 2024. They led the finalisation of Operation Respect’s strategy, which was released in June 2024.
  2. Operation Respect’s strategy included a short implementation plan that outlined some activities. However, it provided limited detail about when activities were scheduled, who would be responsible for them, and how they would contribute to the outcomes. NZDF has carried out detailed planning in some areas, such as how it will approach defence area work.
  3. A programme manager was recruited shortly after and work began on the programme management documents needed to guide the programme’s implementation, in line with NZDF’s programme management requirements.
  4. In our view, implementation planning could be strengthened by NZDF more clearly setting out details of all planned activities, the rationale behind this sequencing, and how the different work streams interact, and what is expected to be achieved by when. We discuss why this matters in more detail below.
  5. NZDF are aware of this and more detailed planning is underway.
  6. In our view, this implementation planning is dependent on there being sufficient programme management capacity and capability. We discuss resourcing in paragraphs 116-123.

NZDF is implementing large programmes of work throughout the organisation, and planning for these needs to be well co-ordinated

  1. Operation Respect’s first phase is ambitious. It involves large pieces of work that different parts of the organisation are leading. In our view, NZDF would get the most benefit from these pieces of work by ensuring that they are well co-ordinated.
  2. Examples include response system policies and defence area plans. We have not seen any evidence that explains how the release of the response system policies, such as the revised Bullying, Harassment, and Discrimination policy, will be co-ordinated with the work occurring on camps, bases, and ships as part of the defence area planning.
  3. We heard that one of the benefits of the defence area work is that it will encourage a consistent approach to talking about “above the line” and “below the line” behaviours. If communication about the policies is co-ordinated with work on the defence areas plans it could provide an opportunity to encourage discussions with units and teams about what appropriate behaviour is.
  4. Communication with, and training for, leaders on the revised policies could usefully contribute to NZDF’s work to enhance leadership capability as part of the defence area plan work, if the streams of work are co-ordinated appropriately.  
  5. NZDF told us that the Operation Respect team and Defence Legal Services plan to work together to ensure this occurs.

The Operation Respect team needs to be clear about the dependencies between the programmes of work to guide sequencing of activities

  1. Operation Respect is a 20-year programme, so NZDF cannot implement all activities at once. The activities need to be sequenced. NZDF has mapped out the sequence of the activities at a high level in places such as the benefits roadmap but has not clearly identified dependencies. This is needed to guide its implementation decisions.
  2. NZDF has considered sequencing for activities within some workstreams. For example, we heard that its intends to prioritise the three defence areas where NZDF conducts initial training to complete defence areas plans. This makes sense.
  3. However, the rationale for sequencing of other activities is not clear from the documents we saw, or our discussions. The types of sequencing we think NZDF should consider include:
    • Sequencing the roll-out of the new response system policies with other activities, for example:
      • Does the Anti-Harassment Advisor Service and Training need to be reviewed to ensure adequate bullying support services are in place before the response system policies are finalised and released?
      • Do leaders need to be trained on the draft policies before they are finalised and released, or after the release?
    • Sequencing NZDF’s work on career development systems, for example:
      • Does work on leadership development need to inform improvements to performance review processes so they can be used to assess leaders capabilities in preventing and responding to harmful behaviour?
  4. We recognise that culture change programmes need to be able to adjust as it becomes clearer what works and what doesn’t. It would be beneficial for NZDF to consider the types of dependencies we set out above. This would assist those responsible for implementing activities to be aware of any implications if changes are needed. It is also important for those governing the programme to understand this.

Monitoring and measuring progress

  1. NZDF has a plan to monitor the programme’s benefits. As this work progresses, NZDF needs to be clearer about the connection between the activities and expected benefits so it can understand what is working.

NZDF needs to better describe the connection between planned activities and their expected benefits, which will help it understand what activities are working, and to demonstrate impact

  1. NZDF has plans for monitoring and evaluation, and is preparing a benefits realisation framework for Operation Respect. However, a clearer programme logic to show the intended impact of activities and how they will contribute to benefits would be useful. Without this, it will be difficult for those governing the programme to understand progress.
  2. The draft framework sets out the four benefits that Operation Respect is intended to deliver. It also defines measures for these benefits. Several of the documents associated with the benefits realisation framework, such as the benefits roadmap, attempt to explain how the activities are relevant to the expected long-term benefits. This is a useful start. However, these documents do not describe the expected impact of these activities and how those impacts contribute to the long- term benefits.
  3. For example, one of the benefits in the framework is that NZDF enables leaders at all levels to create a culture that embodies safety, respect, and inclusion. One of the measures for this benefit is that the behaviour of leaders reflects NZDF values. It is not clear from the framework what specific leadership activities NZDF is implementing that would contribute to this benefit being realised. It is also not clear what impacts are intended from these leadership activities.
  4. Better setting out the relationship between activities, impacts, and benefits will assist NZDF in tracking the implementation of activities and knowing whether they are achieving the intended impacts. This includes which activities to prioritise and expand, and whether any should be discontinued. This will be particularly important if resourcing becomes more limited.

NZDF should continue to refine the measures it uses as new data becomes available

  1. The initial Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Framework proposed an iterative approach that NZDF refines as new knowledge and data collection methods develop. For example, after the new complaints unit is in operation, NZDF will have access to new data on reporting of bullying, harassment, and discrimination and the timeliness of responses.
  2. We recommend NZDF uses other sources of information as well as survey data. For example, as it develops its work on performance reviews, it could collect data about how often leaders are being recognised for behaviours that contribute to creating safe and cohesive teams.

NZDF needs to ensure that the monitoring work it carries out as part of the defence area plans aligns with the benefits realisation framework

  1. The Operation Respect team will provide support to defence areas about how to measure the impact of their defence area plans. This is positive. Our 2023 performance audit found leaders wanted more support and guidance on this.
  2. In our discussions, it was not clear how NZDF’s monitoring and measuring of defence area plans connects to the long-term benefits outlined in the benefits realisation framework. The Operation Respect team should ensure that this measurement is aligned. The defence area work is integral to Operation Respect’s success, so it is important that NZDF identifies how the activities in defence area plans contribute to the programme’s long-term benefits in the framework.
  3. We observed that one of the Operation Respect team’s challenges is identifying sources of data that NZDF can use to track the prevalence of harmful behaviour at camps, bases, and ships and in units and teams. NZDF should consider using a range of data to measure the impact of its defence area work, including qualitative data. Data gathered through interviews, focus groups, and other types of discussions can help to understand people’s perception of the climate on their camp, base, ship, unit or team.

Resourcing Operation Respect

  1. NZDF’s initial investment provided the resources needed to ensure the success of the programme. NZDF needs to continue to resource Operation Respect to succeed so that personnel continue to trust NZDF’s commitment to making change, and the programme achieves its outcomes.

The new Operation Respect team was set up with expertise to manage a complex culture change programme, and the benefits of this are clear in the new strategy

  1. The Operation Respect business case approved by the NZDF Executive Committee provided funding for the first phase of the strategy from 2023/24 to 2026/27. This included resourcing for a range of new positions within the core Operation Respect team. When we carried out our review, the core Operation Respect team had six permanent employees and two fixed-term employees. The benefits of the increase in resourcing were apparent.
  2. Operation Respect is a complex culture change programme that requires an understanding of how to change norms and behaviours. In our view, the Operation Respect team has the right breadth of skills to deliver this work. We also saw the benefits of having a senior military officer lead the programme. They bring a deep knowledge of the organisation and can work with senior military personnel effectively.
  3. The complexity of the programme – with multiple work streams that are managed out of different parts of the organisation – needs strong programme management and organisational development skills. The benefits of a dedicated organisational development and programme management resource have also been evident in development of programme documents and in the well-developed approach to the defence area work.

NZDF needs to continue to prioritise resources if the programme is to be implemented effectively

  1. We heard that resourcing for Operation Respect is now uncertain. There is a risk this will have implications for the programme’s ability to achieve its outcomes.
  2. Not all the positions approved in the business case have been recruited, and the future of some positions is uncertain as the budget for the programme is revised. Some resource has been temporarily reassigned. This is already starting to have an impact on programme delivery. The defence area plan workshops have been delayed. The work on leadership development and safer spaces work will still go ahead, but it will take longer than initially planned.
  3. We understand that there are no easy solutions. However, we consider that, in a cost-constrained environment, it will be even more important that NZDF properly co-ordinates and aligns the activities that it carries out, so that it can make the most of them and identify where to prioritise its efforts.
  4. To do this, it is vital that NZDF ensures that the programme has the right resources to deliver planned activities. We heard from personnel that the new strategy and additional funding had given the work new energy. To maintain people’s trust in Operation Respect, it is important to continue the momentum that the programme has generated.

1: We use the term inappropriate and harmful behaviour to refer to any behaviour within the categories of bullying, harassment, and discrimination, and inappropriate and harmful sexual behaviour, including both criminal and non-criminal acts.

2: The response system is the systems, processes, and activities that make up how NZDF responds to incidents of inappropriate and harmful behaviour. This includes the complaints and discipline systems as well as processes that, and personnel (such as Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Advisors, Social Workers, and leaders) who, respond and support personnel when harm occurs.

3: A trauma-informed approach recognises the myriad of ways that people can be impacted by inappropriate and harmful behaviour. It prioritises ensuring that people reporting this behaviour feel safe and have choice and control in the reporting process. A people-centred approach puts the person affected by the harm at the centre of the response. It makes sure that they feel listened to, that they can access the type of support they need, and that they have input into how their case is managed.

4: This is the expectation that uniformed personnel who become aware of an incident of harmful sexual behaviour have a duty to report it. The Director of Legal Services has determined that it does not legally exist.

5: The Institute for Leader Development is part of the Defence College.

6: Operation STAND is NZDF’s programme of work focused on alcohol and drug harm minimisation.