We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Marie please sign in and let everyone know.

Investigations and prosecution under Maritime Transport Act 1994

Marie made this Official Information request to Waikato District Council

This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Marie to read recent responses and update the status.

From: Marie

Dear Waikato District Council,

Could you please provide the following:

1. Could you please advise of any investigations and prosecutions by your council under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 in the last 10 years (or timeframe that doesn’t invoke the too must work refusal clause).

2. Your internal procedures/manuals and other documents in relation to whether you investigate and prosecute or Maritime New Zealand does.

3. What is your understanding (any agreements or memorandum of understanding with Maritime New Zealand) on decisions and how those decisions are made as to whether you or Maritime NZ investigate recreational boating incidents.

4. Please provide your standard operating procedures for investigating and prosecuting under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (or general if not specific).

5. Please provide the criteria used to determine if you investigate an recreation boating incident.

6. Please provide the code of conduct and conflict of interest policy in relation to your investigators. For example, if a victim and complainant in a recreational boat incident is a friend of one of your investigators or officers, and then they called your officer on a weekend, then went your officers house to complain about the incident and told your officer how angry they were about the other people on board, and their treatment etc…(when police and harbour master were already aware of the incident and choose not to act) would your officer then be able to recommend and lead an investigation into the accident including making recommendations to prosecute the people the officers friend was angry at? (This situation did not involve your council, or other councils, but was a situation with an officer from a govt department investigating an incident under the circumstances described). I am not trying to get an opinion, rather demonstrate the angle I am taking regards policies and documents that relate to this and would either allow or disallow that example to happen in your organisation.

Yours faithfully,

Marie

Yours faithfully,

Marie

Link to this

From: Info
Waikato District Council

Kia Ora,

Thank you for your email. Please be advised that it has been received and
will be directed as necessary by our records team.

 

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
You can reach us via email at [1][email address] or on 0800 492 452.

 

Ngaa mihi,

Jared Solomon 

Customer Delivery Team | Contact Centre

Waikato District Council

■ P 07 824 8633 ■ F 07 824 8091 ■Call Free0800 492 452

Private Bag 544, Ngaruawahia 3742

[2]www.waikatodistrict.govt.nz ■ [3]Like us on Facebook

 

 

 

 

 

From: [FYI request #27223 email]

Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 3:08 PM

To: [Waikato District Council request email]

Subject: Official Information request - Investigations and prosecution
under Maritime Transport Act 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Waikato District Council,

Could you please provide the following:

1. Could you please advise of any investigations and prosecutions by your
council under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 in the last 10 years (or
timeframe that doesn’t invoke the too must work refusal clause).

2. Your internal procedures/manuals and other documents in relation to
whether you investigate and prosecute or Maritime New Zealand does.

3. What is your understanding (any agreements or memorandum of
understanding with Maritime New Zealand) on decisions and how those
decisions are made as to whether you or Maritime NZ investigate
recreational boating incidents.

4. Please provide your standard operating procedures for investigating and
prosecuting under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (or general if not
specific).

5. Please provide the criteria used to determine if you investigate an
recreation boating incident.

6. Please provide the code of conduct and conflict of interest policy in
relation to your investigators. For example, if a victim and complainant
in a recreational boat incident is a friend of one of your investigators
or officers, and then they called your officer on a weekend, then went
your officers house to complain about the incident and told your officer
how angry they were about the other people on board, and their treatment
etc…(when police and harbour master were already aware of the incident and
choose not to act) would your officer then be able to recommend and lead
an investigation into the accident including making recommendations to
prosecute the people the officers friend was angry at? (This situation did
not involve your council, or other councils, but was a situation with an
officer from a govt department investigating an incident under the
circumstances described). I am not trying to get an opinion, rather
demonstrate the angle I am taking regards policies and documents that
relate to this and would either allow or disallow that example to happen
in your organisation.

Yours faithfully,

Marie

Yours faithfully,

Marie

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FYI request #27223 email]

Is [Waikato District Council request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to Waikato District Council? If so, please contact us
using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.waikatodistrict.govt.nz/
3. http://www.facebook.com/WaikatoDistrictC...

Link to this

From: Records 4U
Waikato District Council


Attachment image001.jpg
25K Download


By email:  [FOI #27223 email]

 

 

Dear Marie,

 

RE:  REQUEST FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL
INFORMATION AND MEETINGS ACT 1987

 

We acknowledge receipt of your information request dated 11th June 2024. 

 

In accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings
Act 1987 (“the Act”), Council will, as soon as reasonably practicable, and
in no case later than 20 working days after the day on which the request
is received: -

(a)           decide whether the request is to be granted and, if it is to
be granted, in what manner and for what charge (if any); and

(b)           email to you notice of the decision on the request.

Please be aware that sometimes for large requests or those requiring
consultation, we will seek an extension which the Act allows.  If so, we
will let you know and give you a specific due date; or

we may seek further information from you if we feel your request is not
clear, or we may seek to refine your request if the scope is very broad.

 

If you require any further information regarding your request please
contact Naomi Lee, Official Information and Delegations Advisor, telephone
027-2253708 or email [email address

 

Yours faithfully,

Records and Information Officer

Waikato District Council

Te Kaunihera aa Takiwaa o Waikato

” Waea puukoro: 0275098907 ” Nama waea: 0800 492 452 
Pouaka Poutaapeta: Private Bag 544, Ngaruawahia 3742 
Waahi Mahi: 15 Galileo Street, Ngaruawahia

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to this

From: Naomi Lee
Waikato District Council

Hi Marie,

 

I refer to your request for information which the Waikato District Council
(Council) received on 11 June 2024.  

 

We have an obligation under the Local Government Official Information and
Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) to communicate a decision within 20 working
days, that is, by 10 July 2024.

 

We would like to clarify the following aspect/s of your request by asking
if your query relates to a specific location of interest or, a beach or
riverbed?

 

I look forward to your response.

 

 

Could you please provide the following:

1. Could you please advise of any investigations and prosecutions by your
council under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 in the last 10 years (or
timeframe that doesn’t invoke the too must work refusal clause).

2. Your internal procedures/manuals and other documents in relation to
whether you investigate and prosecute or Maritime New Zealand does.

3. What is your understanding (any agreements or memorandum of
understanding with Maritime New Zealand) on decisions and how those
decisions are made as to whether you or Maritime NZ investigate
recreational boating incidents.

4. Please provide your standard operating procedures for investigating and
prosecuting under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (or general if not
specific).

5. Please provide the criteria used to determine if you investigate an
recreation boating incident.

6. Please provide the code of conduct and conflict of interest policy in
relation to your investigators. For example, if a victim and complainant
in a recreational boat incident is a friend of one of your investigators
or officers, and then they called your officer on a weekend, then went
your officers house to complain about the incident and told your officer
how angry they were about the other people on board, and their treatment
etc…(when police and harbour master were already aware of the incident and
choose not to act) would your officer then be able to recommend and lead
an investigation into the accident including making recommendations to
prosecute the people the officers friend was angry at? (This situation did
not involve your council, or other councils, but was a situation with an
officer from a govt department investigating an incident under the
circumstances described). I am not trying to get an opinion, rather
demonstrate the angle I am taking regards policies and documents that
relate to this and would either allow or disallow that example to happen
in your organisation.

Link to this

From: Marie

Dear Naomi Lee,

Thank you for your message. I am not so much concerned with an area of interest, beach, river etc… more to do with anything under your jurisdiction ie anything your officers investigated or prosecuted under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (if any), and how those decisions were made. I am not concerned about infringement notices for not wearing life jackets etc. Essentially, from Maritime New Zealand there have been various stories in media and otherwise as to how they triage an incident report as to whether it gets investigated, who can initiate an investigation, as well as how decisions are made as to whether the local councils investigate or MNZ.

You may have seen the Fair Go piece last year where Maritime NZ refused to investigate an incident where a motor boat capsized rowers, ambulances involved, leaving permanent injuries as the driver was not keeping look out…. MNZ stated it did not meet the threshold for them to investigate and passed it to the local body to do so, (the local body did an admiral job under the forced circumstances, especially when the qualified person from the local body recused themselves from the investigation due to a conflict of interest with a victim) the result a $200 infringement notice which the victims were unhappy with. That compared to Maritime NZ (their officers) choosing to investigate (or recommend they investigate, depending on which version of their decision policy is used) a less serious incident when the lead MNZ officers mate is the victim, and is angry, making absurd allegations and has the ear of his officer mate to the extent the officer invited his victim friend to his house in the weekend to lay his complaint. The officer then made recommendations to his manager to prosecute his mates ex friends he was angry at and was fully involved in the prosecution team. I am just trying to determine if that sort of situation is normal and acceptable (I do not believe it is) by comparison of others with powers under the MTA and how those decisions are made and the level of integrity involved.

Hopefully above demonstrates I am trying to understand the level/seriousness of incidents that you investigate, actions take and policies and processes in relation to that.

Yours sincerely,

Marie

Link to this

From: Naomi Lee
Waikato District Council


Attachment image001.jpg
63K Download


Hi Marie,

 

We refer to your official information request dated 11 June 2024 and your
response to our request for clarification received on 17 June 2024 for
information on investigations and prosecutions under the Maritime
Transport Act 1994 (see below).

We have transferred your request to the Waikato Regional Council. The
information which your request relates to is not held by us but is
believed to be held by Waikato Regional Council.  In these circumstances,
we are required by section 12 of the Local Government Official Information
and Meetings Act 1987 to transfer your request.

You will hear further from the Waikato Regional Council concerning your
request.

 

 

Dear Naomi Lee,

 

Thank you for your message.  I am not so much concerned with an area of
interest, beach, river etc… more to do with anything under your
jurisdiction ie anything your officers investigated or prosecuted under
the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (if any), and how those decisions were
made.  I am not concerned about infringement notices for not wearing life
jackets etc.  Essentially, from Maritime New Zealand there have been
various stories in media and otherwise as to how they triage an incident
report as to whether it gets investigated, who can initiate an
investigation, as well as how decisions are made as to whether the local
councils investigate or MNZ.

 

You may have seen the Fair Go piece last year where Maritime NZ refused to
investigate an incident where a motor boat capsized rowers, ambulances
involved, leaving permanent injuries as the driver was not keeping look
out…. MNZ stated it did not meet the threshold for them to investigate and
passed it to the local body to do so, (the local body did an admiral job
under the forced circumstances, especially when the qualified person from
the local body recused themselves from the investigation due to a conflict
of interest with a victim) the result a $200 infringement notice which the
victims were unhappy with.  That compared to   Maritime NZ (their
officers) choosing to investigate (or recommend they investigate,
depending on which version of their decision policy is used) a less
serious incident when the lead MNZ officers mate is the victim, and is
angry, making absurd allegations and has the ear of his officer mate to
the extent the officer invited his victim friend to his house in the
weekend to lay his complaint. The officer then made recommendations to his
manager to prosecute his mates ex friends he was angry at and was fully
involved in the prosecution team.  I am just trying to determine if that
sort of situation is normal and acceptable (I do not believe it is) by
comparison of others with powers under the MTA and how those decisions are
made and the level of integrity involved.

 

Hopefully above demonstrates I am trying to understand the
level/seriousness of incidents that you investigate, actions take and
policies and processes in relation to that.

 

From: [1][FYI request #27223 email]

Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 3:08 PM

To: [2][Waikato District Council request email]

Subject: Official Information request - Investigations and prosecution
under Maritime Transport Act 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Waikato District Council,

Could you please provide the following:

1. Could you please advise of any investigations and prosecutions by your
council under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 in the last 10 years (or
timeframe that doesn’t invoke the too must work refusal clause).

2. Your internal procedures/manuals and other documents in relation to
whether you investigate and prosecute or Maritime New Zealand does.

3. What is your understanding (any agreements or memorandum of
understanding with Maritime New Zealand) on decisions and how those
decisions are made as to whether you or Maritime NZ investigate
recreational boating incidents.

4. Please provide your standard operating procedures for investigating and
prosecuting under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (or general if not
specific).

5. Please provide the criteria used to determine if you investigate an
recreation boating incident.

6. Please provide the code of conduct and conflict of interest policy in
relation to your investigators. For example, if a victim and complainant
in a recreational boat incident is a friend of one of your investigators
or officers, and then they called your officer on a weekend, then went
your officers house to complain about the incident and told your officer
how angry they were about the other people on board, and their treatment
etc…(when police and harbour master were already aware of the incident and
choose not to act) would your officer then be able to recommend and lead
an investigation into the accident including making recommendations to
prosecute the people the officers friend was angry at? (This situation did
not involve your council, or other councils, but was a situation with an
officer from a govt department investigating an incident under the
circumstances described). I am not trying to get an opinion, rather
demonstrate the angle I am taking regards policies and documents that
relate to this and would either allow or disallow that example to happen
in your organisation.

Yours faithfully,

Marie

Yours faithfully,

Marie

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Jennie Cox


Attachment Response REQ210531 Maritime Transport Act questions.docx
536K Download View as HTML


Kia ora

 

Attached is our response to your questions.

 

Nāku iti nei, nā

Jennie

 

Jennie Cox​​​​  |  OFFICIAL INFORMATION AND PRIVACY ADVISOR  |  Democracy, Customer, Community and Services
WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL | Te Kaunihera ā Rohe o Waikato
P: [1]+6478590897
M: [2]+64275501896
F: [3]facebook.com/waikatoregion
Private Bag 3038, Waikato Mail Centre, Hamilton, 3240

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/tel:+6478590897
2. file:///tmp/tel:+64275501896
3. https://www.facebook.com/waikatoregion

Link to this

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Marie please sign in and let everyone know.

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Waikato District Council only: