3 July 2024
File Ref: OIAPR127402363-28355
Marie (FYI Org)
By email: [FYI request #27226 email]
Tēnā koe Marie
Request for information 2024-121
I refer to your request for information dated 11 June 2024, which was received by Greater
Wellington Regional Council (Greater Wellington) on 11 June 2024. You have requested the
following:
“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
Wellington office
Upper Hutt
Masterton office
0800 496 734
PO Box 11646
PO Box 40847
PO Box 41
www.gw.govt.nz
Manners St, Wellington
1056 Fergusson Drive
Masterton 5840
[Wellington Regional Council request email]
6142
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.”
Greater Wellington’s response follows:
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). No prosecutions have been taken under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (MTA).
2.
Your internal procedures/manuals and other documents in relation to whether you
investigate and prosecute or Maritime New Zealand does.
There is no formal arrangement in place regarding agreement to take action between
ourselves and Maritime NZ. Therefore we are refusing this part of your request under
section 17(e) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the
Act) on the basis that the document alleged to contain the information does not exist or,
despite reasonable efforts, cannot be found.
When refusing a request under section 17(e) of the Act, we are required to first consider
consulting you. In this instance, we believe that consulting you would not change the
outcome of our decision.
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. There is no memorandum of understanding of this decision making. Borth organisations
approach this in their own way.
4.
Please provide your standard operating procedures for investigating and prosecuting
under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (or general if not specific). Enforcement procedures (this document is overdue for updating) and Compliance model
are attached (
Attachments 1 and 2).
5.
Please provide the criteria used to determine if you investigate an recreation boating
incident
These are contained in
Attachments 1 and 2.
Page 2 of 3
6.
Please provide the code of conduct and conflict of interest policy in relation to your
investigators The Council has investigation staff in relation to the Resource Management Act 1991 but
no specialised investigators in relation to the MTA. Attached are Greater Wellington
Conflict of Interest Policy and Staff Code of Conduct (
Attachments 3 and 4).
You have provided a very specific set of circumstances that may not be addressed directly by
the documents I have sent through. However, as a general rule, we would expect staff to be
aware of conflicts such as those you have raised, and these would be reviewed by managers to
remove any real or perceived bias or favouritism.
If you have any concerns with the decision(s) referred to in this letter, you have the right to
request an investigation and review by the Ombudsman under section 27(3) of the Local
Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
Please note that it is our policy to proactively release our responses to official information
requests where possible. Our response to your request will be published shortly on Greater
Wellington’s website with your personal information removed.
Nāku iti noa, nā
Lian Butcher
Kaiwhakahaere Matua Rōpū Taiao | Group Manager Environment
Page 3 of 3
