Pike’s interference could compromise investigation

Written By: - Date published: 10:27 am, December 4th, 2010 - 75 comments
Categories: law, Mining, workers' rights - Tags:

Pike River’s lawyers have been pushing to attend the Department of Labour/police interviews with workers. Workers who refuse to have a company lawyer present are being interrogated by the company afterwards about what they were asked and how they responded. Pike are also trying to get the recordings of the interviews.

This behaviour seriously risks compromising the investigation. Pike may well be prosecuted if this investigation finds they are at fault and their attempts are akin to a suspect in a crime being allowed to sit in on police witness interviews.

Tellingly Pike’s rationale for doing this changed over the course of a few hours. Early in the piece they were claiming they were providing lawyers to ensure workers “got the appropriate advice on their rights, and how the process worked.” but by the time John Dow was appearing on Checkpoint it was all about the company saving time on its own investigation.

It is up to the Department of Labour and the police to make it very clear right now that company reps will not attend these interviews and that the tapes will not be provided to Pike River Coal ltd.

This investigation is serious and it needs to turn up real answers. If workers can’t be confident they are speaking confidentially it is unlikely the full story will be told and that would be a huge disservice to the men that have perished in this disaster and to the principles of natural justice.

75 comments on “Pike’s interference could compromise investigation ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Draco T Bastard 1
    4 December 2010 at 10:44 am

    What a surprise, more corruption from the corporate sector.

    • ZeeBop 1.1
      4 December 2010 at 3:52 pm

      Sorry, did I miss something. A person helps Police with inquiries and they are leaned on????
      Sorry but isn’t that some crime, tampering with an ongoing inquiry? interference in…

      Anyway, this is where unions become useful to management, the union wants the mine
      reopened, the union can have a lawyer present and not interfere. The mine managers
      know the union want the mine opened again. The union lawyer will be serving his union
      members in any discussion with management….

  2. Marty G 2
    4 December 2010 at 10:49 am

    very well said, Irish.

    The response from Farrar (/the KBR) has surprised me. I mean, we expect them to side with business but here we’ve got a company that’s just had 29 workers die on its site, it has to be under a cloud. There should be no suspicion that the company has used its power over its workers to influence their testimony.

    It’s not a matter of ‘giving them the option’ as Farrar says because there’s no true choice for a worker in this situation – refusing to have the company lawyer along could result in negative consequences from the company.

    The Police and DoL shouldn’t be letting the company lawyer anywhere near those interviews. If the workers want legal representation that’s what the union is for, to provide services to its members on work-related issues.

    As for the changing excuses, that’s a classic tell, eh? Next they’ll say they were talking about Australian mining.

  3. Bill 3
    4 December 2010 at 10:50 am

    I’m astounded that a situation whereby company lawyers can even think to attempt to access such interviews. And that they are then given the space to defend or rationalise that attempt is…is…fuck, I’m lost for words.

    Sometimes people simply deserve a good kicking.

  4. prism 4
    4 December 2010 at 10:50 am

    I was shocked that the company would be allowed to do this. There must be one investigation in depth that is separate from company involvement. There are too many constraints from interested parties having different viewpoints that could result in important information being held back and so excluded from the investigating panel. It should be a panel of judicious disinterested but knowledgable worthies.

    This event is sad. With NACT and Bulldozer Brownlee at the wheel embracing mining, oil drilling etc there will be more accidents – inevitable in these dangerous extraction industries. But what the hell – a politician can always come forward and make sad speeches of condolence and promises of … and get more public exposure and a photo opportunity. Sort of follows pattern of Bob Parker in Christchurch who doesn’t appear to have followed up with caring efforts for the ordinary folks most damaged.

    • Swampy 4.1
      4 December 2010 at 12:38 pm

      Key is elected to lead our country, he is a politician and damned if he do and damned if he don’t.
      Little is also a politician and the same applies in general.

      You main discontent with Parker seems to be he has left it to his staff to do the work on the ground rather than grandstanding for attention like 2021 were doing in the local body elections.

      I don’t see anyone in the union calling for the mines to be shut down, however there is obviously lots of scope for the unions to be a key part of the Labour Party election campaign for the West Coast seat, and a bit of payback on the part of the miners wouldn’t go astray.

      • Bill 4.1.1
        4 December 2010 at 1:17 pm

        Why would the epmu call for mining to be prohibited as a matter of principle?

        The West Coast doesn’t offer too much in the way of reasonably renumerative employment. So mining it is. If there were feasible alternatives to a life in the mines, then maybe it would be possible to wind down mining operations. But hell would have frozen over and still the market would have been unable to provide decent employment opportunities in areas such as the West Coast. That’s the way it is.

        Economies of scale and the accompanying centralisation of operations mean that sparsely populated areas lose industry that can be done at a distance on a greater scale and closer to main markets, with the resultant products being shipped out to lesser populated areas, almost as an afterthought, once far more populous and profitable areas have been subjected to market penetration.

        Anybody seeking to prohibit mining has to take that reality into account and suggest alternatives to our current economic paradigm; one that could and would promote the generation of worthwhile employment on the West Coast and other such similar locations.

        • Marty G 4.1.1.1
          4 December 2010 at 1:27 pm

          swampy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The miners’ union is not anti-mining.

          • Bill 4.1.1.1.1
            4 December 2010 at 1:32 pm

            Yeah. I know. But he offered an opportunity to point out problems with being anti-mining as well as to vaguely sign-post solutions to those problems.

  5. just saying 5
    4 December 2010 at 10:57 am

    This investigation is serious and it needs to turn up real answers

    There are powerful vested interests that will be ensuring that this doesn’t happen, and its always interesting to watch bodies like the police and the department of labour kow-tow to them.

    I’d like to imagine that this government and the business interests it represents couldn’t get away with any kind of whitewash over any issue this big, that so many care so deeply about, with the amount of scrutiny that entails, but I have a horrible feeling that it will, and the truth will only be publicly acknowledged long after the main players have moved on and public interest has cooled.

    Big effort from all the opposition parties is needed represent the workers and the public interest in matters such as the above, and to influence the make up of the enquiry team, its breadth of powers, and the terms of reference.

    If they act doggedly and decisively, without attempting to simultaneously score political points, I’m sure they will be listened to, at least by the public.

      • just saying 5.1.1
        5 December 2010 at 8:18 am

        A reminder, courtesey of TVNZ archives, of some of the issues surrounding the inquiry into another NZ tragedy. There were tears in public from air nz management, while behind the scenes, they were rushing around with the bleach, covering up the truth.

        That Air New Zealand had orchestrated a ‘pre-determined plan of deception’ and committed organised perjury whilst giving evidence before the Commission.

        That CEO Morrie Davis – by his instruction to destroy ‘irrelevant’ documents – had sought to ensure the destruction of evidence harmful to Air New Zealand’s case before the Commission.

        That the catalogue of errors within the flight operations and navigation divisions (that resulted in the changing of the McMurdo waypoint without the knowledge of the flight crew) reported to the Commission was a fabricated story: a story concocted to explain away the airline’s deliberate actions undertaken to deceive both the Civil Aviation Division in New Zealand and the air traffic control authorities at McMurdo Sound.

        That Captain Eden had coerced the testimony of First Officer Rhodes regarding the character of Captain Gemmell.

        That Captain Gemmell had removed from the crash site documents vital to the investigation, but harmful to Air New Zealand’s case, and not disclosed those documents to the Commission.

        • just saying 5.1.1.1
          5 December 2010 at 8:36 am

          Was Muldoon’s credibility and popularity dented by his facilitation of the coverup at the time? Genuine question, I was just a teenager and don’t remember.

  6. Treetop 6
    4 December 2010 at 11:26 am

    If a worker does not choose to have a Pike River lawyer accompany them to be interviewed by the Department of Labour or the police, there is surely a good reason for this. Mine workers have been through an ordeal since 19 November, they do not need to be intimidated, bullied or silenced by those who may be found to have been negligent in their welfare.

    The company who runs the Pike River mine will have their oppertunity to defend themselves.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      4 December 2010 at 11:49 am

      The company shouldn’t even be allowed to suggest that a company lawyer accompany the worker or in any way be at the interview.

  7. Swampy 7
    4 December 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Oh this is so onesided. The EPMU decided this was a good time to get their political campaign started. So as soon as it looked like there was the slightest challenge to their way of doing things, they run off to the newspapers like good politicians to get their side of the story out first.

    Has it occurred to you that the EPMU has probably already had its own meetings with its members at Pike River, “organising” they call it, to decide how they will conduct things from herein.

    • Marty G 7.1
      4 December 2010 at 12:26 pm

      If members of a union want to talk to each other that’s their business and if they want to consult with their professional advisers, that’s their business. There’s no suggestion that the EPMU did anything wrong and workers have a right to seek the advise if they choose to protect their work rights.

      If a business that has just had 29 workers die on the job tries to have its lawyer sit in on interviews with the remaining workers, that’s an attempt to pervert the course of inquiry.

      • Swampy 7.1.1
        4 December 2010 at 1:10 pm

        But they didn’t, because the Labour Department and I am sure the police and the other people conducting the enquiries all know what the rules are, and the Labour Department rep was quoted in the paper stating that they made it clear to the workers that no lawyers had to be present. That is why this is such a one sided viewpoint.

        So let’s just step back a bit and look at what probably went on beforehand:
        The EPMU meets with its members and pledges to support them and informs them of their rights etc (including the right to have a union advocate or lawyer present at their interview)

        The company board meets and resolves to inform them of their rights etc including the right to have a company lawyer present at their interview to support them.

        Clash happens and the union runs off to the media to accuse the company, and the politics are in their favour but best not mention that the miners union president just also happened to be president of the Labour party.

        Essentially what you are saying in the first paragraph is if the union does this and that it’s OK but if the company does essentially its own version of the same things they are morally corrupt and trying to influence the course of the enquiry. Whereas lets try and get some balance here.

        Little has sniffed the wind and seen an obvious golden opportunity to curry political support by the standard union attacks company scenario which in the circumstances they can’t lose, however this factor also has to be taken into consideration and counterbalanced if the inquiries are going to have any amount of fairness and balance to them.

        • Bill 7.1.1.1
          4 December 2010 at 1:28 pm

          Swampy.

          Bosses are not generally the workers’ friend. And whereas I might prefer in our current context that most bosses lived in fear of the factory floor, the reality is somewhat different. Most workers suffer overt and covert forms of intimidation day in and day out in their place of work. ( Go on. Cry me a river about all those decent and unfairly maligned bosses who constitute your fantasy majority.)

          Anyway, you think there would be no effect on an employee were a company lawyer to sit in on interviews where evidence damning to the company might be put forward? And you think the company wouldn’t seek to manoeuvre in ways that would neutralise any such evidence? And you think there would be no repercussions for workers who the company knew had forwarded damning information?

          Pu-leeze.

        • Marty G 7.1.1.2
          4 December 2010 at 1:34 pm

          what you don’t understand is that the union is the workers.

          Little and the union representatives are the paid employees of the workers.

          “The EPMU meets with its members and pledges to support them and informs them of their rights etc ”

          Um. no. the union delegate, who is one of the workers, would have made sure the other members knew their rights and he would have asked for advise from his paid advisers (the union officials). The ‘union’ doesn’t roll into town and dictate to the workers how things are to be.

          But you don’t really understand what a union is, so I doubt you get that.

          Little hasn’t ‘sniffed the wind’ he has obviously been informed of what is happening by the workers (his employers) – how else would he know? And he has advised them that he would like to make this issue public on their behalf and they has consented.

          Little is not in charge of the workers, the EPMU is the workers’ paid advisers, whereas the company does have power over the workers as employer.

          and that’s the crucial difference between a company lawyer trying to get in on these interviews and workers, perhaps (because we have no evidence) saying that they would like one of their employees to come along to advise them.

          In your terms, having the union rep along is like you bringing your family lawyer along – he is there as your employee and adviser, nothing more. The company lawyer, on the other hand, is duty bound not to you but to the company.

        • mickysavage 7.1.1.3
          4 December 2010 at 8:33 pm

          Swampy

          I have blogged about the legal ethical issues at http://waitakerenews.blogspot.com/2010/12/pike-river-and-now-games-commence.html

          Essentially it is really inappropriate for Pike River to be sending in its lawyers to act for the workers and it starts to smell like an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

  8. Swampy 8
    4 December 2010 at 1:18 pm

    There is a very important point that hasn’t been cleared up yet and that is that the union must have informed its members they were entitled to have a union delegate, advocate or lawyer to support them in the interview.

    • IrishBill 8.1
      4 December 2010 at 1:35 pm

      Of course it did. But the union isn’t a potential suspect in the investigation and the company is.

      • Swampy 8.1.1
        4 December 2010 at 1:55 pm

        The union is an advocate for people who could be potential suspects. Isn’t that a fair description of the scenario.

        • Marty G 8.1.1.1
          4 December 2010 at 2:05 pm

          people who potentially could be found to have done something wrong bringing their paid advisers to interviews is normal.

          the key point you seem to be having trouble with: the union rep works for and is employed by the worker. The legal duty is from rep to worker.

          The company lawyer is employed by the company and legal duty towards the company, not towards the worker – and, therefore, should never be a position of potentially influencing an interview that may uncover information that is negative for the company.

        • Bill 8.1.1.2
          4 December 2010 at 2:35 pm

          Swampy.

          Here’s a couple of questions, the answers to which might better inform where any potential liability might lie.

          Were Pike River in the business of extracting coal or extracting profit? Given the nature of their core business, did they have anything to gain through lax safety measures or systems, or not adhering to them?

          Were the mine workers extracting coal or profit? Given the nature of their work, did they have anything to gain through lax safety measures or systems, or not adhering to them?

          Can you see the inherent conflict of interests between those of the company and those of the workers yet? And how those conflicts persist through any enquiry process?

      • grumpy 8.1.2
        4 December 2010 at 2:22 pm

        but the last Labour Government is…..and Little is the President.

    • Marty G 8.2
      4 December 2010 at 1:37 pm

      Christ you don’t understand any of this.

      A union delegate is a worker in a workplace who is employed by the company like everyone else and is elected by the other workers to coordinate their relations with the company and to get the workers assistance and advice from their employees – the union representatives – if and when needs be.

      Of course the delegate, having consulted with the union’s employees, would have informed his fellow workers of their rights going into the interviews or got one of the union reps into explain and answer workers’ questions.

      I fail to see what the “very important point” you’re trying to make is.

      • Swampy 8.2.1
        4 December 2010 at 1:54 pm

        You just said it yourself. Of course the delegate would have offered to attend the interview to support the worker.

        The argument seems to be that the company was not entitled to also offer to have a representative attend the meeting to support the worker.

        • Marty G 8.2.1.1
          4 December 2010 at 2:01 pm

          that’s right. the company is not entitled to try to have its lawyer present because that lawyer is there as a representative of the company. legally, that lawyer must put the company’s interests first, ahead of the worker’s, so you’ve got a person in the interview room whose interests are for a different party whose potential wrongdoing is being investigated.

          if you and i were accused of a crime together, would it be ok to have my lawyer in your interview? of course not because that lawyer is obligated to act in my interests even if that compromises your interests

  9. grumpy 9
    4 December 2010 at 2:24 pm

    And a lawyer or rep. from EPMU is also there to protect the last Labour Government through the direct link – Andrew Little.

    • The Voice of Reason 9.1
      4 December 2010 at 2:47 pm

      You should have been a coal miner, grumpy. You sure know how to dig a hole.

    • Marty G 9.2
      4 December 2010 at 4:11 pm

      thew lawyer’s duty is to the worker they’re representing, not the national secretary of that union

      • grumpy 9.2.1
        4 December 2010 at 4:32 pm

        who pays the bill?

        • mickysavage 9.2.1.1
          4 December 2010 at 6:41 pm

          And why is this relevant? So if the employer pays the bill the lawyer can work on behalf of the employee to blame another employee??

          • grumpy 9.2.1.1.1
            4 December 2010 at 8:47 pm

            It is relevant because you are arguing that the company should not provide the worker with a lawyer because of possible conflict of interest with the company, however it is OK for the EPMU to provide one, despite the clear conflict of interest with EPMU/Labour Party when Labour politicians will be part of the investigation.

            It’s the hypocracy of your argument that is relevant.

            • Colonial Viper 9.2.1.1.1.1
              4 December 2010 at 9:00 pm

              Oh grumpy, does that mean the Pike lawyer only represents the employee, and does not represent the employer? That the employee is considered the lawyer’s client (with all the priviledges that implies), and that Pike merely pays the bill?

              Hey good deal!

              BTW I don’t think its like that at all = bad deal

              I like RWNJs lecturing about hypocrisy, seems apt.

            • mickysavage 9.2.1.1.1.2
              4 December 2010 at 9:29 pm

              Grumpy

              Please reread the post. The employer’s interests are different to the workers because the inquiry will boil down to who was at fault, the company or the workers on the site?

              I am sorry but I do not understand your suggestion that there is a conflict between the EPMU/Labour supporting the workers presumably because somehow it was all Labour’s fault. Obviously you think that a policy decision caused the disaster.

              You and others can investigate Labour as much as you want. If you do you will find out that Labour actually called for a report on mine safety in 2008 and called for submissions. And that Kate Wilkinson shelved the report. The details are
              here.

              Good attempted diversion. This is going to be an ongoing attempt by RWNJs to blame environmental standards and the left wing for what was lax safety standards and penny pinching on safety.

              I have this urge to say a few four letter words but will stew instead.

            • Marty G 9.2.1.1.1.3
              4 December 2010 at 9:44 pm

              the workers pay the bills via their subs.

  10. B 10
    4 December 2010 at 3:06 pm

    Anyone involved would be wise to have a lawyer, because the DOL will be trying to frame this in a way that shifts the focus away from itself onto any or all other parties. DOL hasn’t fulfilled its statutory duties and will be fixated on the prospect of the ‘Cave Creek’ clause being invoked.

    • Pascal's bookie 10.1
      4 December 2010 at 3:20 pm

      They’d be wise to have a lawyer if said lawyer is representing them.

      If lawyer is representing someone else, then it sure as shit aint so clear cut.

    • Treetop 10.2
      4 December 2010 at 3:27 pm

      Where can the Cave Creek clause be found?

      • B 10.2.1
        4 December 2010 at 6:52 pm

        To be more precise, it’s the lack of a clause. Post Cave Creek, the Crown’s exemption from the HSE Act was removed. Subsequently, civil servants are potentially personally liable for acts of omission or dereliction. If there is something DOL staff knew or did, or ought to have known or done, esp. in terms of stat duties, they have a problem.

        • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.1
          4 December 2010 at 7:25 pm

          Sorry, but I’m still pretty unsure about what you are getting at. DOC constructed and were responsible for the cave creek platform. The analogous party in this case would be PRC surely?

          Here’s what you calimed:

          DOL hasn’t fulfilled its statutory duties and will be fixated on the prospect of the ‘Cave Creek’ clause being invoked.

          The bolded part is a statement of fact that you might want to support with some sort of evidence.

          The ‘Cave Creek’ clause relates to the OSH act, so I assume you have some evidence that DOL has failed to live up to it’s responsibilities under the OSH act in regard to the mine at Pike River.

          Sharing that evidence would help people have an idea what it is you are talking about.

          • B 10.2.1.1.1
            5 December 2010 at 9:48 am

            DOC had a statutory duty that it did not fulfil, but was exempt. My assertion is that DOL has not fulfilled its statutory duties, but is no longer exempt.

            Evidence? The 2008 report was not a bolt from the blue. Industry insiders were complaining long before that statutory inspections were not taking place and that there were few or no qualified mine inspectors available. Some bailed from the industry because of this. DOL had duties, but Labour and the unions were complicit in their inaction on this and the HSE regime in general.

            • Treetop 10.2.1.1.1.1
              5 December 2010 at 10:22 am

              On Insight at 8 am this morning, mine safety/inspection and the probable cause of the events on 19 November 2010 was discussed pertaining to the Pike River mine. See:
              http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/insight

            • Pascal's bookie 10.2.1.1.1.2
              5 December 2010 at 10:27 am

              but Labour and the unions were complicit in their inaction on this

              How do you get this? The union submitted to the 2008 report asking for more regulation I believe. How can the union be ‘complicit’ in the lack of action by the outgoing and incoming governments?

              And what statutory duty are you talking about, specifically?

              • B …
                5 December 2010 at 1:32 pm

                ‘The union submitted..’ Gosh, how effective! The labour movement in general has had a decade each of Labour and National to lobby effectively against the ‘self-regulated’ HSE Act. Its submissions have amounted to minor adjustments to the arrangement of the deck chairs. The transplanted Act, long gone in the UK, is probably now the most enduring testament to Thatcher’s disregard for the safety of workers. It’s sad that it’s here in NZ we continue to pay the price.

                • felix …
                  5 December 2010 at 1:38 pm

                  So if I read you correctly you think the fault is firmly with the companies involved for keeping standards low, but the workers are complicit because they didn’t fight it hard enough.

                • Pascal's bookie …
                  5 December 2010 at 2:42 pm

                  Oh look yeah you’re right. because the unions didn’t start shooting people, blowing shit up and launching general mayhem related activities, then they are responsible for both the state of the law and the company’s actions.

                  But what specific statutory duty are you talking about with regard to DOL?

                  And how, specifically,are the unions complicit in DOLs failings?

                  Beyond their failure to waive a magic wand and pass legislation and have it enforced.

  11. Jenny 11
    4 December 2010 at 4:14 pm

    .

    “…..we can recover the business”

    John Dow, (Pike River Coal Chairman)

    Mine to Reopen?

    Speaking the day after thousands of mourners gathered for a remembrance service in Greymouth, Pike River Coal chairman John Dow said getting the mine working again was definitely feasible…..

    ….”Last Sunday when we had the fourth explosion that set the coal on fire, that darkened the outlook significantly,” he said.

    “It extended the period of time that we’d be engaged in this recovery process, and time works against you when the money clock is ticking.”

    To reinforce the story on how the company plans to reopen the mine. A follow up story about how workers are pleading with the mine management for jobs.

    “guys pleading for work”

    To date the company has sold about 40,000 tonnes of coal at an average $US200 a tonne and a further 20,000 tonnes at about $US122 a tonne. Expansion plans reveal how the company aimed to dig out an estimated $4 billion worth of coal during the life of the mine.

    But while there’s no shortage of confidence, cash was already tight and analysts spoken to by ONE News said it could take $50-$60 million to re-open the mine.

    If that $50-$60 million was spent on creating green jobs, how many more jobs would be created than the 150 that were employed in the mine?

    My bet is that many times that number of permanent jobs could be created for that amount of money, than mining will deliver, and unlike mine jobs, which will inevitably disappear when the seam runs out, Pike River Mining, as well as leaving a compromised ecology, will leave another ghost town on the West Coast. – Whereas investment in Green technologies jobs would be ongoing indefinitely.

    Of course the profits would not be as good. Which is why it won’t be done.
    Instead, lives will continue to be risked and the environment endangered.

    This is a further exposure of the Greed is Good analogy.

    It also exposes the companies hand wringing about jobs to be false, their main concern is profit.

    The thought of the estimated $4 billion still to be dug out at Pike River is all that concerns them.

    For this sort of return, the workforce and the environment can go hang, if that’s what it takes.

    • Jenny 11.1
      4 December 2010 at 4:43 pm

      That, so soon after this disaster, workers are pleading to risk their lives, just to bring some security to their families, is more an indictment of the market driven economy, (where mass unemployment is considered a good thing), than any expression of liking for the mining industry.

  12. Murray 12
    4 December 2010 at 4:32 pm

    As a Subcontractor and a employer I could see possible problems with this.
    How could employees be expected to speak freely and objectively with a lawyer representing their employer present.

    • lprent 12.1
      4 December 2010 at 4:41 pm

      Especially when the employer is quite likely to be the organisation most at fault in the mine disaster if anyone is found to be at fault.

      • mickysavage 12.1.1
        4 December 2010 at 6:43 pm

        And the lawyer’s job will not to be to look after the interests of the employee but the employer even though the employee may not want this?

        This really smells …

  13. BLiP 13
    4 December 2010 at 5:10 pm

    This action by Pike River Coal doesn’t do much for the perception of justice being seen to be done. Are they trying to hide something. Will there be a lawyer representing the interests of the miners present during all the company interviews and will the Union plus other interested parties be given transcripts and tapes?

  14. infused 14
    4 December 2010 at 5:47 pm

    A Department of Labour (DOL) spokesman said it was the employee’s choice to decide whether company lawyers or other representatives attended on DOL interviews.

    “We are informing employees that they have this choice.”

    Full of shit once again.

    • Zorr 14.1
      4 December 2010 at 5:53 pm

      That isn’t really the issue. The company lawyer shouldn’t even be there. Full stop. End of discussion.

      The fact that the lawyer is there at some of these meetings is damning of the actual investigation process.

      • mickysavage 14.1.1
        4 December 2010 at 6:44 pm

        Agreed.

        Although it is an acknowledgment by Pike River that it has something to be mightily afraid of …

      • infused 14.1.2
        4 December 2010 at 9:47 pm

        Why? Because you say so? Union can sit in, but not the company lawyers. Go figure.

        • Marty G 14.1.2.1
          4 December 2010 at 10:10 pm

          no.

          lawyers for a different party should not sit in on the interview of a person in a serious investigation.

          if you and i were accused of a crime, my lawyer could not sit in on your interview, likewise if I had accused you of a crime or if we were both just witnesses.

          If (and we don’t know) any worker chose to get one of the lawyers they employ via their union fees to attend an interview, that’s just like you bringing the family lawyer.

          There is a conflict of interest in the company’s lawyer being at a worker’s interview. There is no conflict when the worker chooses to have a lawyer that he has had his union supply him present.

          • infused 14.1.2.1.1
            4 December 2010 at 10:19 pm

            It’s optional, what’s the big deal?

            “There is no conflict when the worker chooses to have a lawyer that he has had his union supply him present.”

            Sorry, I don’t see the difference.

            • Zorr 14.1.2.1.1.1
              4 December 2010 at 10:41 pm

              A conflict of interest is now an optional thing? News to me.

            • Pascal's bookie 14.1.2.1.1.2
              4 December 2010 at 11:19 pm

              Sorry, I don’t see the difference.

              The workers are the union. Union lawyer = workers lawyer.
              The workers are employed by the company. Company lawyer /= workers lawyer.

              Where the company and the workers may have different interests, then there is a conflict of interest involved in a lawyer claiming to represent the interests of both.

              • ianmac …
                5 December 2010 at 12:12 am

                Pascal’s bookie as a completely side issue to this discussion, the John Key question might be
                “What Values do you own?”
                (Sorry but I am still thinking.)

  15. Trevor Mallard 15
    4 December 2010 at 9:23 pm

    I blogged on this yesterday over on Red Alert http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/12/03/department-inquiry-shouldnt-be-whitewash-or-witch-hunt/

    Clearly I have an interest in a fair investigation but still can’t understand how the DoL can investigate itself.

    • swimmer 15.1
      4 December 2010 at 9:39 pm

      I look forward to watching the house on Tuesday. 🙂

    • KJT 15.2
      4 December 2010 at 10:12 pm

      Unfortunately in NZ the regulatory, inspection and investigation bodies are not separated.
      It is common for DOL, MNZ or other agencies to be the investigator in incidents where their own actions, rules or failures may be a proximate cause.

      In any case mining in NZ is a small industry and the chance of getting knowledgeable investigators without conflicts of interest within the country are not good.

    • Bill 15.3
      4 December 2010 at 11:15 pm

      I guess we can expect the same level of credible outcome as when the police investigate themselves through the (cough) independent police authority or when the Speaker or who-ever investigates wrong doings in Parliament?

      Shame that the union, as the only body with no financial interest or reason to cover anyone’s culpable arse can’t head up any investigation. In the realms of the unthinkable that, innit?

  16. ianmac 16
    5 December 2010 at 3:07 pm

    During the 90s National withdrew the rules about buildings = leaky homes.
    During the 90s National withdrew the rules on checks on mine safety = Pine Creek
    During the 2010s National appears to be withdrawing the rules on water use in Canterbury = ?

Links to post