Would the possibility of criminal negligence cause the company to mislead the public as to what really happened at the Pike River mine?

Is there any reason why Government officials prefer to have matters surrounding the Pike River Mine swept under the carpet? Is the Government's motivation to sweep matters under the carpet related to their own potential liability of negligence contributing to the death of 29 men?

What other existing conflicts are there with the New Zealand Government and the Pike River Mine company -
 
* Is it concerning to the National Government, particularly the Prime Minister (John KEY) and the Minister of Mining (Gerry BROWNLEE) that their new multi-billion dollar project to mine on conservation land is now under threat as a result of the Pike River Mine incident?

* Is the Government's involvement with Pike River Mine further complicated as a result of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) investing tax payer funds heavily into Pike River Mine - a company that has always underperformed. Is it embarrassing for the ACC that not only have they invested in an underperforming company but that it has also invested in a company that has very poor risk management and staff safety procedures.

* Does it make matters worse that the New Zealand superannuation fund was also a substantial investor?

* Was the Department of Conservation adhering to the terms of the company's mining permit by reviewing the level of gas emissions coming from Pike River Mine? Was the Department of Conservation turning a blind eye to the Pike River Mine company working outside the hours permitted in their mining permit?

* Did the Department of Labour seize and examine all risk management policies, procedures and verify company practice?  Was there confirmation that risk policies and practice were in place? Were Board minutes examined? Was their evidence of the Board considering and accepting risk management policies?

* Why did the Police not run in parallel to the search and rescue operation an investigation of possible negligence by the Pike River Mine company.Given the probability of company negligence, why did the police allow the company to effectively control the operation and then hand over full control of the scene to the company prior to the bodies or locations of the remains being located?

* Why has the police effectively allowed the company ample opportunity to contaminate vital evidence?

Is there any chance of an investigation cover-up in order to hide all blunders made by Government officials?

Is the Pike River Mine tragedy one of New Zealand’s most shameful events?

Media reports which the police and officials seem to be unaware of, or turning a blind eye to, include –   

* Initial reports that smoke was seen coming from the mine on the evening before the explosion occurred.

* When a Pike River employee finished his shift at 8.00 am on the day of the blast he had reported gas problems.  This employee was a father of one the deceased miners (Brendon Palmer, aged 27)  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10689312
 
* On his first video interview, (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/one-news-extra-pike-river-coal-ceo-peter-whittall-3-05-video-3904281) PeterWHITTALL said the miners were working the afternoon shift. In a further interview approximately two weeks after the blast WHITTALL refers to one of the deceased miners (Peter O’NEILL) as having worked a 12 hour shift (Ref Guy ESPINER interview (TVNZ) published 28 Nov).

* If O’NEILL had worked a 12 hour shift does that mean he worked a nightshift? 

* If O’NEILL worked a night shift does this make the claim that smoke was seen coming from the mine the evening prior to the blast highly relevant?
  
* Is it also highly relevant therefore that an employee (Palmer) finished work at 8.00am on the day of the blast and reported gas problems?