"For our family, there have always been unanswered questions and dissatisfaction with how the whole inquiry was done and where blame was laid," she said.
"Hopefully this may help ensure that no other civilian family ever has to endure the added stress of dealing with the Army who seemed more interested in protecting their reputation than in showing compassion and open communication."
Mark would not comment further yesterday, but the Times-Age understands the minister's questions related to Pennington's evidence to police and the Army that he was instructed to use "left-foot braking", and the court of inquiry's preference for evidence from someone not in the cab when the crash happened near Ashhurst on August 10 last year. "Left-foot braking" is not recommended by the New Zealand Transport Agency, but Pennington insisted to police he was told that the right foot was "strictly for the accelerator".
The police concluded Pennington intended to hit the brake, but his foot hit the clutch instead, consistent with trying to use his left foot to brake.
The Army denies trainees are taught left-foot braking. Its court of inquiry findings rejected Pennington's evidence in preference for a photograph of a boot mark next to the accelerator.
It concluded he tried to brake with his right foot, but his foot slipped and hit the accelerator.
WorkSafe, the agency responsible for workplace safety, has consistently refused to investigate the crash, stating that the police was the appropriate agency to do so.
But the police investigated it as a traffic crash, and did not look into potential workplace safety issues related to Pennington's training.
Pennington pleaded guilty guilty careless driving causing death and was discharged without conviction, which Joan Carter welcomed.
A spokesman for Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety Iain Lees-Galloway confirmed he was aware that the court of inquiry would be re-convened but maintained the matter was an "operational issue".
WorkSafe had not been advised that the court had been re-convened but knew it was happening. "We will await the outcome of the inquiry and have no further comment to make."
The Army has yet to respond to questions about why the court has been reconvened.