09 July 2024
Marie
By email: [FYI request #27224 email]
Dear Marie
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (“LGOIMA”):
Request for Information
I refer to your request dated 11/06/2024 requesting information on investigations and
prosecutions under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. Your request has been referred
to me to reply. Please see our responses below and in the documents attached.
Q1: 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).
There has only been one investigation in the 10-year period relating to the Coastal
Environment and it’s an ongoing investigation. This investigation is not being carried
out under the Maritime Transport Act 1994. Please see attached for all Maritime
infringements.
Q2: Your internal procedures/manuals and other documents in relation to whether you
investigate and prosecute or Maritime New Zealand does.
Please see attached.
Q3: 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.
There is no agreement or Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) in place with
Maritime New Zealand (MNZ). If an incident or accident is reported to the Harbour
Masters Office (HMO) we discuss it with the MNZ manager of compliance for the South
Island. If MNZ wish to investigate using their own criteria they wil take the lead and
may involve the HMO. If MNZ decides not to investigate, the HMO wil decide what
action we wil take, which could include running it through our enforcement decision
process.
Q4: Please provide your standard operating procedures for investigating and
prosecuting under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (or general if not specific).
Please see attached.
File Number: GOVE/INQU/OMBU/2809C
Q5: Please provide the criteria used to determine if you investigate a recreational
boating incident.
Al reported incidents are initially investigated to a degree, see attached document
‘Enforcement Decision Process and Checklist’
• Is there a clear party against which enforcement can be taken?
• Is there clear evidence indicating that an offence was commit ed?
• Can we prove that the offence was caused by this/these parties?
• Is it in the public interest?
• Is the offence or area of identified heightened risk?
• What were the effects of the incident? – Nil Actual, Potentially Minor, Actual
Minor, Potentially Moderate, Actual Moderate, Potentially Major, Actual Major,
Ongoing.
Q6: 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.
Al our staff are aware of the organisation’s conflict-of-interest policy. With respect to
the example mentioned above, it is unlikely this would happen at the HMO as it would
be identified as a conflict of interest, which means the complainant’s request would be
handled by another officer.
You wil be aware that if you are not satisfied with this response, you are able to refer
this matter to the Office of the Ombudsman under s27 (3) of the Local Government
Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987.
Should you require any further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to
contact [ECAN request email] in the first instance.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Hall
Director of Operations
File Number: GOVE/INQU/OMBU/2809C
