Dear Canterbury Regional 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