Maritime NZ
March 24th, 2009 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarPhil Kitchin has done another fine investigation – this time into MaritimeNZ. The quick summary is the CEO instructed investigators for a boating fatality to only investigate the crash and sinking, and not the response by rescue organisations – as one of them was managed by MaritimeNZ.
One investigator rightfully said that the response is critical as that is the difference between someone just having a bath and drowning at sea.
The Dom Post editorial says:
The emails obtained by The Dominion Post show that when controversy about the rescue emerged, Maritime NZ director Catherine Taylor and senior manager Peter Williams decided the search and rescue operation would not form part of the investigation. In one email, investigator Captain Ian Webb was instructed to confine his inquiries “to the sinking”.
Maritime NZ sources have told The Dominion Post that Mr Webb, who was sacked before his report was completed, successfully challenged that instruction. In a reply, also obtained by The Dominion Post, he said he was aware of the “political sensitivities” of the case, but was conscious of what could occur when the integrity of an investigation was made subordinate to other concerns.
“It is not reasonable to confine this or any investigation to the point at which the vessel foundered,” he said. “It is the conditions and events following the sinking which decide whether the boat’s occupants merely suffer from an unscheduled bath or die.”
Absolutely.
According to Ms Taylor, it is “standard practice” for Maritime NZ not to investigate any other parts of its organisation so there can be no allegations of a conflict of interest.
However, it is Maritime NZ’s failure to investigate itself that raises questions of a conflict of interest in this case. What is the point of an investigation that ignores salient information?
Mr Hampton’s parents are seeking an inquiry into the way Maritime NZ investigated their son’s death. Their request should be granted, but the inquiry should be widened to address other issues raised by the case.
I think and hope the Government will do an inquiry into this. Public organisations need public confidence.
Related posts:
- Maritime Union wants total control
- PCA refuses to investigate Dunedin Police claims
- The Maritime Union at work
- More Dim-Post
March 24th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I’m sure the Government will take the right actions necessary to sort this out.
Vote:March 24th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
In the interests of fairness to Maritime NZ, is it in their area of responsibilities for what they are supposed to investigate? Should that be something the Coroner should be investigating instead?
Vote:I honestly don’t know one way or the other, but I do know the media likes to be selective about the facts they choose to print.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
We never got a full investigation into the sinking of the Michael Lermontov.
Richard Prebble, seemed to feel a 25000t liner going down wasn’t worth the effort, and accountability was a foreign word to him
Vote:March 24th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Not that I’m any expert, but wouldn’t there be some benefit in having clear boundaries to what is being investigated and reported on?
Some boat(s?) crashed, and sank, with loss of life. This was a tragedy so how and why it happened needs to be investigated. If there were shortcomings in the way the emergency response happened, that was a pity and it should be investigated too, but it is almost a separate issue IMHO, to be reported on separately.
Gummint department cover-ups make great news stories. But perhaps the CEO instructed the crash investigators to focus first on investigating the crash itself, so that THAT investigation could be kept simple and corruption-free, as any investigation into the emergency response could be done separately by someone else?
(As an aside – if you have a misadventure and then the emergency services fail to save your life, when in some peoples’ estimations they “should” have been able to, is a wrong done? Or are you just sh*t out of luck?)
Vote:March 24th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Why don’t you go checkout the Lermontov and write us a report there jacob.
Here’s a big rock to help you on your way.
Vote:March 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
M , I wont take up your offer, Im still having to cope with the 36 virgins after the wrath of the witchdoctor fell onto me.
But my investigation wouldnt be around the wreck of the M L, but rather any links from the CIA to NZ politicians in the late 80s. Follow the money as they say, and it leads to the truth
Vote:March 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Jacob give it a rest.Cant you find anything new and relevant on National(NO ..?),other than to turn back the clock and resort to spy stories.
Vote:March 24th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
WHAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh christ thats priceless. Sink a Russian liner in some of the worst waters for diving as part of a CIA plot for no apparent benefit (unless you think sound bites from X files are “evidence”).
After half an hour with the pilot I can tell you what happened. Hes an arrogant SOB totaly convinced of his own abilities and thought he could thread the needle.
He was wrong.
Much like you.
Maybe the aliens did as part of their breeding program. It would explain more about the left in NZ politics at least. Funny funny people not of this earth.
Vote:March 24th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Why did KAL 007 decide to overfly the most heavily defended part of the Soviet Union ? They were on a spying mission.
Want to find out if the M L was on a snooping mission , sink it and see what signals are sent out.
Vote:March 25th, 2009 at 9:26 am
OF COURSE! It all makes sense, why use hi tec stealth spy planes when you can divert a civilian aircraft with unqulified, none security cleared crew and several hundred civilians at least a couple of whom might just ask tricky questions.
Thanks for opening our eyes jacob, your every word is a revalation.
More tinfoil for jacob please, his hats slipping.
Vote: