Respect lost in incredulous
decision
The recent decision by the
Manager of Investigations Harry Hawthorn on behalf of Maritime NZ to not
prosecute the master involved in a serious harm collision, sends a very
confusing message to the maritime and leisure marine industry in New Zealand.
The incident occurred during
Auckland’s Anniversary day regatta involving the yacht Gypsy who had just started in the carded classic yachts event off
Princes Wharf, when it was T-boned and sunk by the vessel Antaeus under power. Conditions on the day were light airs, in
which the yachts including the 34ft (10.26m) Gypsy, were only just wisping along with minimal steerage and definitely
no power with which to get out of the way of their own shadow had they even
tried, never mind a bloody great 18m (60ft) yacht motoring with clear sticks at
what some onlookers suggest near on 10knots.
The devastating result was
the loss of a 1939 Logan designed classic and the near loss of crew person Jill
Hetherington who suffered a fractured pelvis and serious head injuries that may
have resulted death had it not been for the quick actions of the Gypsy’s skipper John Pryor, who rolled Jill
over into the rescue position while supporting her limp form in the water.
The decision to not
investigate was made by a Maritime NZ duty investigator, confirmed by the
senior investigator in charge, as not being serious enough to warrant an
investigation.
This decision was later
contested by the commercial industry who identified some huge discrepancies in
Maritime NZ standards. Had this involved a commercial vessel, irrespective of
the serious harm nature of the event, you can bet Maritime NZ investigators
would have been over the commercial skipper like a rash. Not so…
But, the decision by Maritime
NZ to belatedly open an investigation was seen to be fair and reasonable.
Meanwhile, the Harbourmaster took the easy way out and issued a $200
infringement to the skipper of the Antaeus,
Mr Charles St Clair Brown, for breach of the local Harbourmasters bylaws. This
then raised the question of potential double jeopardy to which our lawyers
suggest, No! They likened it to when you might get a speeding ticket for
driving the getaway car at speed under the road transport laws and then be
charged for a serious offence under the Crimes Act.
In the letter sent to the
skipper of the Gypsy, Maritime NZ advised
that they did not propose to take any additional enforcement action. They
admonished him for not taking action to avoid a collision in accordance to Rule
22… Hello! What part of wisping along trying to maintain steerage, versus a
vessel under power at enough speed to cut a yacht damn near in half: power
gives way to sail, don’t they understand?
Needless to say John’s
reaction was one of astonishment, while the still recovering Jill was in
disbelief, confused and asking how can this be? “This is just incredulous”, she
said.
Meanwhile, waterfront
scuttlebutt is less than kind suggesting that Charles St Clair Brown has
fingers in high places. I for one would not like to argue that such influence
could be true, even when the evidence is starting to suggest otherwise. With
numerous recent examples of incidents resulting in prosecutions, had Maritime
NZ placed this case before the courts to decide, the maritime industry and New
Zealand would have at least seen due process in action and maintained a
professional respect for the regulator.
I respect the General Manager
of Investigations Harry Hawthorn, when he took time out of his busy schedule to
discuss changes in policy affecting his decision on this case. Harry advised
that based on the interviews with the two operators involved and an eyewitness
he had decided not to prosecute. When questioned on the decision, the result of
which sends a clear message condoning bad behaviour on the water, Harry said
no. “No, we are saying from our investigation, there is nothing to suggest that
either operator was deliberately trying not to comply with the rules”.
“What about operating a
vessel at speed in a busy waterway with undue care and attention and failing to
maintain a proper lookout resulting in a near fatal collision”, I asked. “We
have no evidence that this was the case” he said.
The decision was based on their
new compliance approach of information, education and assistance to comply with
enforcement. “It’s a whole new approach to Maritime NZ’s compliance strategy
and enforcement” he advised, and was somewhat astounded that we did not know
anything about this. Well bugger me days, I know I can be a bit cloth eared at
times, but this was all new to me and to most of the maritime industry, might I
suggest.
Sadly, it would appear that
Maritime NZ has lost the plot, or maybe it’s the result of losing most of its
maritime institutional knowledge with only one person in investigations having
a scant background in fishing. The end result clearly exposes a level of public
incompetence never before seen in this organisation. Who are these people to come
up with new compliance strategies or change the rules of investigations without
consulting the maritime industry, which it impacts upon most?
Have they stepped outside
of their charter? Maybe the time has come when as the regulator, it is time to
hand over its role of accident investigations to an external agency, or given
that most of the current crop of investigators including Harry are ex-police,
then should it be the New Zealand Police who are tasked with this
responsibility? At least the maritime industry would know where it stands.
Finally, the link below
makes for interesting reading and just reinforces my comments.
If there was ever a case for a government agency to be scrapped surely this is it.
Disclosure. I am an employee of Professional Skipper magazine.
No comments:
Post a Comment