by Gareth Hughes
A few commentators have been raising issues with what we have been saying about the Rena disaster.
Firstly, along with Greenpeace, EDS and other environmental groups, we have said the Government’s inability to quickly respond to and contain a relatively small spill (at worst 1700 tonnes of heavy oil) demonstrates that we would be in serious trouble if there was a blowout in a deep sea well. The negative environmental and economic consequences of the Rena will be significant, even though it is miniscule compared to what happened in the Gulf of Mexico last year.
As John Key, Whale Oil, and others have astutely noted, deep sea drilling is nothing like what happened with the Rena.
Exactly our point: coastal shipping accidents are relatively rare and preventable, and they involve smaller quantities of oil. Compared to coastal shipping, not only is deep sea oil drilling far more risky in terms of probability of accidents, the consequences would be more severe. The Deepwater Horizon incident involved hundreds of times more oil.
Deep sea oil drilling is on par with space exploration, in terms of technical difficulty and complexity, and is a recent phenomenon for the most part. While there were more than 3,000 wells in the Gulf when the Deepwater Horizon blew up, there were at most a few dozen in deep water. It is inherently more difficult to assure safety, even with robust regulations (not that we have those.)
So hopefully our point is clear – we shouldn’t be allowing foreign oil companies to drill exploratory wells when it’s a high risk activity and we would be (pardon my language) totally f*^%ed if anything went wrong.
But now the Government and other critics are saying – wait a second, your transport policy supports increased coastal shipping! Wouldn’t that increase the chances of another Rena-like disaster?
The answer, quite simply, is no. Green Party policy would make coastal shipping safer, cleaner and greener.
If we plan for growth in coastal shipping, if we prioritise domestic growth (rather than just allowing any foreign ship with a flag of convenience to move containers from port to port), if we invest in proper regulation, proper health, safety and employment standards, we will reduce the likelihood of another accident. And we must be properly prepared if one happens.
The Greens are the only party that supports specific policies like reinstating cabotage regulations, which will support the domestic shipping industry, and we will ensure there are adequate labour standards (wages and conditions) on international vessels in New Zealand waters, irrespective of the flag under which the ship operates. We want to support the development of hybrid ships, that will make greater use of wind and solar, which will improve energy efficiency and reduce the need for container ships to rely on oil. We were appalled in 2009 when we found out the Government was cutting all funding to coastal shipping.
This Government has demonstrated time and time again that they are committed to reducing regulation, and making it easier for cowboys to operate, in a variety of sectors. They prefer to take a hands-off approach, leaving it to industry to provide “world’s best practice”. They are optimistic that nothing bad will happen, and if it does, it will be easy enough to sort out.
There is a theme here. Christchurch earthquake and building standards, Pike River Mine and mine safety standards, and now the Rena and deregulation of coastal shipping. Some disasters are unavoidable, like the earthquake, whereas in the latter two cases deregulation doubtless contributed to them occurring. We need to be realistic about the possibility of accidents and natural disasters, and we need to take those risks into account in our management of human activities. Regulations are not just a cost imposed on business, they are an investment to prevent worst case scenarios. Without regulation, businesses are forced to race to the bottom through cost cutting.
If you had asked BP and the others involved before the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon, do you think they would have said, well actually there is a decent chance of a serious accident and no, to be fair, we aren’t really conforming to world’s best practice? And two weeks ago, if we had asked John Key and Steven Joyce if there was reason to worry about a foreign-owned and -captained cargo vessel crashing into a reef, they would have camly reassured us with some smiles and waves.
Green Party Policy supports increased coastal shipping as one of the most energy efficient means of transporting freight, and an essential part of our transport system that can be even safer, cleaner and greener. It’s not hard to see that with proper investment and regulation, coastal shipping can be very safe. It’s also not hard to see that this Government can’t be trusted to properly regulate shipping or respond to an unanticipated spill, so we should be very concerned about their cavalier approach to highly risky activities like deep water drilling.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Gareth Hughes on Thu, October 13th, 2011
Tags: coastal shipping, deep sea drilling, deregulation, rena, tauranga
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Let’s clear this up: It doesn’t matter if it’s a brand new ship straight off the showroom floor, or an old rust bucket held together by luck and a liberal coating of silicon sealant. If you drive a massive vessel like that into a reef at 40kph then things are going to turn pear-shaped.
This disaster wasn’t preventable by the Government.
Even if you had things totally regulated, there’s little to stop the captain of a ship having a few quiet sips of whisky late at night and mis-planning his course. Obviously you can regulate against that, but just look at the number of people caught drink-driving every weekend. Human error (or gross negligence as the case may be) is always going to be a factor.
Obviously the preparedness and response can be argued one way or the other, but saying that regulation would’ve stopped this completely (as you seem to be suggesting) is totally misleading.
Like or Dislike:
25 
6 (+19)
If we took your approach on this, no-one would do or learn anything. We’d cringe shivering in corners. Yet you contradict yourself by saying that investment in proper regulation, proper health, safety and employment standards, will reduce the likelihood of another ship accident. So why would it work there but not in oil exploration?
Not every oil well blowout been like Deepwater Horizon so why are you automatically using that as your benchmark? It is purely selective and driven by politics not risk or reason.
“we will ensure there are adequate labour standards (wages and conditions) on international vessels in New Zealand waters, irrespective of the flag under which the ship operates.”
So you are going to arbitrarily withdraw NZ from its international treaties and Law of the Sea obligations? Good luck with that…
Like or Dislike:
28 
14 (+14)
Like or Dislike:
21 
3 (+18)
Insider, deep sea drilling kilometres below the sea is fundamentally physically and technically different to drilling in shallow water or onshore. That technology is unproven and risky — as was shown by the Gulf disaster last year. The pressure and environment is extremely challenging and inhospitable. The geological conditions of each well are unique. It didn’t take many deep water wells being drilled before there was a catastrohphic accident costing billions. It’s not worth it.
Like or Dislike:
14 
15 (-1)
Like or Dislike:
14 
10 (+4)
Risky? Can be. Unproven? Bollox. 700 in waters deeper than 5,000 feet in the Gulf of MExico alone. Before the BP accident, just 1,800 barrels of oil were spilled in blowouts from 1979 to 2009 despite production well over 1mbpd.
Like or Dislike:
14 
10 (+4)
What’s wrong with ‘Flags of Convenience’? Sure, FsOC avoids burdensome regulations in developed countries but they are often the first to sign on to safety protocols. FsOCs employ people from poor countries that would have resorted to other means to get the income to fund their families. Don’t price them out of the international labour market when they’re doing nothing wrong. Have a heart, please.
The Cabotage rules you propose are economically damaging to both New Zealand and other countries. Rates will rise as choice will be restricted. Have a think, please.
I support coastal shipping, but your policies would harm it.
I know you mean well , but please think your proposed policies through and don’t just go for soundbites.
Like or Dislike:
18 
12 (+6)
The answer, quite simply, is no.”
Nonsense. under the same conditions, more ships will ALWAYS be a bigger risk than less ships.
And you can have the best rules and regulations and safety standards in the world – they don’t make the slightest bit of difference if the ship is full steam ahead and the navagator and captain are down below having a party.
The Green Party policy seems to be that we should shirk our responsibility for the oil we want to use in our trains, buses, ships and cars, and get someone else to take all the drilling risks.
Like or Dislike:
16 
13 (+3)
The Maritime Union has published a rather lengthy list of unfortunate incidents involving Flag of Convenience ships operating under the “open coast” policy:
Like or Dislike:
12 
7 (+5)
There are no bad flags, only bad shipowners. FOC used to make it difficult to locate shipowners, but it’s much less prevalent now.
http://shippinglawtimes.blogspot.com/2007/12/evolution-of-flags-of-convenience.html
If you’d have asked those people working on the vessels the maritime union has cited why they worked there, my bet is the answer would’ve been that despite the poor conditions, it’s the best option. Don’t try to take that away from them.
Again, no bad flags- just bad shipowners!
Tell, you what. If you take your logic of closing the coast to ensure more safety, then let’s look at the American example. America operates a much stronger cabotage policy (where ships have to be built in the US). Have a look http://goo.gl/TEyOR
Some of the incidents are related to FOC vessels, but most of them are not.
Moral of the story: it’s easy to highlight when things go wrong and blame others without putting things into perspective.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6 (+4)
So it seems all of the casualties, some with loss of life, were flagged, operated by Americans, and built in the US, a country which has arguably the strictest Cabotage laws in the world.
The undeniable problem is that accidents will happen. Don’t just blame the poor, underpaid people who’re trying to make a living.
Please review your logic guys.
Like or Dislike:
11 
4 (+7)
I am not doing that. I am saying there should be a regulatory regime that prevents their employers from requiring them to cut corners on health and safety in the interest of profitability. And a regulatory regime that requires owners of vessels that service NZ ports to comply with NZ employment law while they are here.
Like or Dislike:
10 
7 (+3)
If you are intending to operate a ship to a high standard there is no point in registering under a FOC.
Like anything else, you get what you pay for. Highly skilled ships officers and engineers can get reasonably paid jobs on high standard shipping, no matter what their Nationality.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3 (+7)
What health and safety corners are cut though on FOC? As I mentioned before , most of the major FOC are the first ones to ratify UN conventions including SOLAS.
Why should they abide by NZ labour laws, including wages i assume? If they are forced to then they will be priced out of the market.
Let me give you an example. The computer you are typing this on is probably made in china. It has every probability of failing. Why do you not insist that they observe NZ laws ? If they do so they will be priced put. Look around you. Most of what you are wearing and using is made in a country with different laws. As a consequence, we are all better off.
Like or Dislike:
8 
5 (+3)
Well. the Aussies do it. If your ship carries Aussie coastal cargo you have to pay Aussie wages. Of course we do not want wage parity with Oz though. Being cheap is our competitive advantage, just like the rest of the third world.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6 (+5)
It’s amazing how much more relevant that video of Metiria Turei questioning Parata is now.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
Hey insider I love your unsubstantiated claims,
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/29/worst-oil-spills-business-energy-oil-spills_slide_10.html
2. Ixtoc I Oil Well
“Gulf of Mexico (Mexico waters), 1980
3.3 million barrels
Like the Deepwater Horizon spill, this one resulted from a blowout on an exploratory well. It took nine months to plug the well.”
Cue argument about dates…
Like or Dislike:
7 
2 (+5)
Every ship going to Tauranga seaport has to miss that reef. So far, its not been a bad result, but it’s just taken one ship to mess up not only the years of uneventful history, but the beaches, business and birds as well.
Get the dynamite out, and blow that reef to bits.
That is the only long-term solution to prevent a recurrance. Everything else anyone in this thread has suggested will not prevent a Rena recurrance. Getting rid of the reef will.
Like or Dislike:
10 
3 (+7)
Kerry says “Well. the Aussies do it. If your ship carries Aussie coastal cargo you have to pay Aussie wages. ”
The Rena has just been to Australia. So that didn’t make any difference to it charging full speed onto rocks.
Safety regulations are totally irrelevant if you have a skipper and navigator having a party instead of steering the ship.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6 (+2)
Frustrated.
Who is better off? All our teenagers that have no jobs?
Since our manufacturing, shipping etc has been out sourced.
Why don’t we import Chinese farmers to do our farming as well. And Philipino politicians. Much cheaper. As you say we will all be better off.
The whole globalisation, freedom of capital, “free trade” con has been blown. Mate.
If you were really concerned about the livelihood and standard of living of third world crews you would be insisting on first world pay and conditions for them.
Like or Dislike:
8 
6 (+2)
So Photo. What do you suggest. No safety regulations?
Leaving the standard of ships and crewing up to the private sector has worked well so far. Right?
FOC’s and survey standards by private classification societies means that shipowners can just shop around for who-ever gives them the easiest ride.
Do you know how many seafarers were killed on ships last month?
AND. It was mostly FOC ships, as usual.
It is not acceptable in commercial aviation and it should not be acceptable in shipping.
Usually it is just a few third world sailors who die, so who cares. There has been more fuss about a penguin than the seafarers who died on a slave labour fishing vessel recently.
The privatised safety model has failed shipping forever. So MNZ in their wisdom extended it to commercial small ships, boats and ferries in NZ.
NZ is refusing to ratify the convention on seafarers working hours, because they know that local ships cannot comply at their current manning levels.
MNZ recently was going around the country trying to change the rules, so that up to medium size, commercial ships could be manned by people with harbour ferry certificates, within 200 miles of the NZ coast.
The rule of successive NZ Governments and maritime NZ is safety first, after money.
AND. The Wahine was, at least partly, a lack of support by regulators against commercial pressure to keep on schedule.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5 (+2)
@Kerry. I suggest you do Econ101 to inform your thinking.
For a comprehensive coverage of the Youth unemployment issues see: http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/search/label/minimum%20wages
Don’t blame foreigners, blame your politicians for youth unemployment.
We already ‘import Chinese farmers’ by buying goods made in China. Thanks for the suggestions of importing them physically though. The population boost in NZ will be useful in gaining a critical mass and making things cheaper in NZ.
Re Philipino politicians, I don’t think that’s a good idea. There’s a thing know as comparative advantage, NZers are possibly better at local politics. A better suggestion would be change the political system. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futarchy for an example.
Kerry, I do care about ‘third world crews’. Pricing them out of the market and making them unemployed is NOT the answer. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_seamen#Contribution_to_Philippine_economy
“The whole globalisation, freedom of capital, “free trade” con has been blown”. Kerry,I challenge you to live a week without relying on foreign capital (credit cards, mortgages,etc) and foreign goods. See how life will be then.
Like or Dislike:
8 
7 (+1)
I did econ 101 and 102 and economic history, which RWNJ’s like yourself prefer to ignore, because it blows your arguments out of the water.
Think how much better off the Philippines and all the countries where third world seafarers would be if the were all paid proper wages for the job. And were not expected to stay away from home for years at a time.
If Shipping companies, which were already making decent profits paying first world wages, were not allowed to employ people at slave labour rates.
Today Philipinos on $US100 a month. Next week Somali’s for two fishheads a day.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6 (+1)
And your example of youth rates is also bollocks. Higher youth rates have little to do with youth unemployment. (Which has been already shown by real world research, not Freidmanite wishful thinking).
Lower wages increases unemployment. Demand drops. As we can see right now in UK, USA and here. Economic history 102. Real world 702. But you obviously slept through that paper.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
I made an argument that Filipinos will be priced out of the market of the wages rise. Please address that argument instead of saying they will simply be better off with higher wages (just to reiterate, my argument is that will not have a job at high wages, leaving them worse off).
Don’t get me wrong, I think conditions on shipping vessels are tough and it’s a lot of hard work. I wouldn’t be able to do it. Thus my respect and appreciation for people who can do the job in order to feed their families.
“Today Philipinos on $US100 a month. Next week Somali’s for two fishheads a day.” – Please make a realistic argument. However, if the fish-heads are tasty enough, they might be a better option than doing nothing.
Did you read any of my references?
Did you take up my challenge of not relying on foreign goods?
My apology to you if i sounded provocative by saying you should do Econ 101. I should have tempered that comment, sorry. To be honest, I may have been incorrect in saying you should do just Econ 101. In my experience Econ 101 builds concepts which you later break down in advanced Econ. So the simplistic assumptions do not necessarily hold. They do though in this case.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Dbuckley. There are reefs, shoals and other ships everywhere. Are you going to remove them all?
Easier to limit cheap ships and cheap poorly trained crews.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6 (0)
@ Kerry
“And your example of youth rates is also bollocks. Higher youth rates have little to do with youth unemployment. (Which has been already shown by real world research, not Freidmanite wishful thinking” – Could you please point me in the direction of that research.
“Lower wages increases unemployment. Demand drops” – Ummmm, OK. Could you point me in the direction of that research as well.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6 (-2)
Yeah right. So if a range of applicants apply for a job, you think a pimply faced youth straight from school with no work record, will be more attractive to an employer than someone with experience and a good work record? (when you have to pay them the same).
Add to that the fact that youth unemployment rate nearly doubled when youth rates came in.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
It’s a term of personal abuse used by people whenever they run out of intelligent debate.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4 (+8)
what does rwnj stand for..?
my guess wd be rightwing numb-nuts/jerk-offs..
..(a bit harsh/inchoate..i know..but accurate as..eh..?..)
..am i close..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
3 
10 (-7)
@kerry. I’m sad now more than frustrated at this debate.
So here’s my final message:
@ Gareth and the Green Party, if you’re still reading this
Let’s get back to this post and its consequences.
You have stated:
“..If we plan for growth in coastal shipping, if we prioritise domestic growth (rather than just allowing any foreign ship with a flag of convenience to move containers from port to port)…”.
By unfairly criticising the flags of convenience and the labourers (see my posts), you’re giving fodder to part of the population that’s rearing its ugly head. See the racism uncovering itself:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/182223/backlash-against-filipinos
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying your positions are resulting in the ugly behaviour. It’s just giving people another excuse. The racists will always be out there, let’s not give them more material. Your endorsement of the MUNZ’s xenophobic and obviously self-serving press releases aren’t helpful either. I have no problem with ‘invest[ing] in proper regulation, proper health, safety and employment standards’. Just do it without boundaries.
You then make a contradictory statement that you will ‘ensure there are adequate labour standards (wages and conditions) on international vessels in New Zealand waters, irrespective of the flag under which the ship operates’.
Your latest press release supports entrenching protectionism: http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/rena-inquiry-must-look-turning-back-90s-deregulation
“”We consider it is far safer if trained domestic crews operate in New Zealand waters”.
Excuse my cynicism, but your short term opportunism is resulting in unintended consequences that could damage your long term reputation. Please think your positions through.
You should follow this line of logic ‘the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally’. It’s from your Charter.
Sit back from this all and look at your Charter again, with emphasis on ‘Social responsibility’ and ‘Appropriate decision making’.
Like or Dislike:
10 
4 (+6)
Dbuckley. There are reefs, shoals and other ships everywhere. Are you going to remove them all?
Yeppers… and there’s a whole heap of spare nuclear explosives to do it too….
Oh wait… I seem to recall that there’s some downside to that … what was it again?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
I agree with your comments about deregulation of the coastal shipping industry, although as noted elsewhere, the drastic cuts in Maritime New Zealand staffing levels under this government might well have also contributed to this dire situation.Strategic risk management is secondary to ideological purity and public sector staffing cuts under this regime…
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
“…It’s sad to see the debate degenerating into name calling…”
that’d be me..eh..?
almost guaranteed to lower the tone of most events..
..(does it stand for ‘rightwing no jokes’..?
..referring to that common syndrome..
..the rightwing s.o.h. bye-pass..at birth…?..)
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
I think the Greens should demand a Royal Commission on the Rena tragedy be held after the immediate concerns of shoreline contamination, public risk and calculation of the costs involved are addressed. Incidentally, has anyone in your party or the greater NZ/Aotearoa environmental movement done a cost/benefit analysis of the costs of this disaster against the dubious ‘benefits’ of government coastal shipping and/or reduced regulatory oversight through staffing cuts?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
“I made an argument that Filipinos will be priced out of the market of the wages rise. Please address that argument instead of saying they will simply be better off with higher wages (just to reiterate, my argument is that will not have a job at high wages, leaving them worse off).”
True. And the Filipinos put the Greeks and Italians out of jobs. And the Filipinos wage expectations mean that they will eventually be replaced by Pakistanis, Tuvaluans, Burmese or whoever will do the job cheaper than Filipinos. It’s silly to claim to be in favour of low wages out of sympathy for those currently employed when they are simply displacing higher paid workers, and will be displaced by lower paid workers.
“If you’d have asked those people working on the vessels the maritime union has cited why they worked there, my bet is the answer would’ve been that despite the poor conditions, it’s the best option.”
If so, how come so many have jumped ship saying the conditions were intolerable? Obviously they didn’t regard it as the best option.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
Nobody has commented (that I saw) about the complete lack of leadership the government showed in letting the ship sit there 4 days(ish) before any attempt was made to remove the fuel oil.
I am very puzzled by that…
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
Well ignorance is certainly bliss in this case. Read some of the threads here and it shouldn’t take you long to figure it out. But befor you doe understand this -the ship was broken, it couldn’t do what you think it could do, that is pump out fuel and there was no boat capable of doing it for them. it appears they’ve been working on for the last two days and they still can’t make it work, so understand that doing is a lot harder than saying.
Like or Dislike:
7 
7 (0)
John Key’s Challenge
On Wednesday 12th October, John Key challenged all of the people who think the Government’s response to the Rena disaster was too slow to put up or shut up.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Frustrated,
Just 2 points that don’t quite get to the substance of your argument.
I don’t think the Greens are being opportunistic in this post, or ignoring appropriate decision making. Their coastal shipping policy was agreed (like all policy) through a robust consensus process. Reinstating cabotage and improving regulation has been published policy for many years.
Secondly, I doubt the Greens think (and certainly I don’t) that Econ 101 and advanced Econ lecturers have a monopoly on the truth. I’ve studied Econ and while there are some very useful concepts that can be supported by evidence, a lot of it is theory driven and demonstrably wrong.
I hear what you are saying about xenophobia, but I don’t think anyone could seriously criticise the Greens for being xenophonic.
Not going to get into a whole big debate here, but I seriously question whether we are all made better off by this system that results in horrible working conditions for foreign crews, environmental externalities, goods travelling ridiculous distances, and developing countries being stuck as the wage slaves to support western lifestyles that are unsustainable.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
Insider.
The ship was not too broken to pump and heat fuel for 4 days.
Given the fact the ship was fast on the reef and holed forward, the weather was forecast to deteriorate within 4 to 5 days and the ships systems may have been too damaged to heat the fuel after it started to break up in bad weather there should have been a lot more urgency.
Where were the pumps and generators being sourced and helicoptered in. The ships, barges or bladders to take the fuel. Awaniua, the AHTS, tugs and maybe Tolema could have been there in 24 hours. If they hadn’t wasted the time sorting out who was paying.
All insiders justifications are excuses for the delay, not reasons!
Like or Dislike:
5 
6 (-1)
RWNJ is a term of endearment we use for the people from the alternative universe where asset sales, cutting taxes, cutting regulation, cutting safety standards, “free trade” and other Neo-Liberal voodoo economics http://kjt-kt.blogspot.com/2011/03/voodoo-economics.html has resulted in us being better off.
The ones who still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that giving more money to the already wealthy makes the rest of us better off.
Like fundamentalist religions, tobacco companies, flat earthers, AGW deniers and creationists, believers in Neo-Liberal economic persist in their delusions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5 (+1)
References from NZ include the Ministry of Social Development and Labour.
Reducing youth rates may help a youth into employment in one particular case. But reducing the wages of a great many people reduces demand and puts businesses and employees out of work.
Working very obviously on businesses in Northland at present. The same as reducing wages and benefits killed of many businesses in the 90′s.
Those from elsewhere are mostly behind pay-walls in research journals. If you have access to them i can give you references. Otherwise it will cost you several hundred dollars to research them. Another market failure given most of the research in journals is publicly funded. Should be available for copying costs.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
Dear Frustrated
I am sorry to hear about how the difficult news that reality has a liberal bias has affected you. Perhaps you should take some logic 101 and engineering 101 courses to counteract the disinformation that is presented in economics 101?
BJ
Like or Dislike:
6 
4 (+2)
Kerry,I challenge you to live a week without relying on foreign capital (credit cards, mortgages,etc) and foreign goods. See how life will be then.
It would be relatively easy for us, AS A NATION, to ditch foreign capital, given its negative effects. Foreign goods would take longer since we have been following the neo-liberal prescriptive solution of becoming a 3rd world agrarian society because THAT is what the pure application of “comparative advantage” reduces us to.
Fortunately we understand better the shortcomings of “comparative advantage” when applied to an island nation distant as we are from other sources of goods. Here’s the short take on “comparative advantage” –
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ralph-gomory/manufacturing-and-the-lim_b_227870.html
…and as for the foreign capital. Well, the proper answer is that we should control our own money, issuing money backed by the KWH we generate here and store in our hydro lakes here (the KWH being deliverable at outlets HERE)… and take away the banker’s ability to create debt-backed money.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
4 (+1)
“Kerry,I challenge you to live a week without relying on foreign capital (credit cards, mortgages,etc) and foreign goods. See how life will be then”.
No problem.
I can build a house, myself, from materials from the local bush.
I built my own yacht already.
The company I work for delivers NZ made goods and is financed from within NZ.
NZ produces enough food to feed many times our current population.
You underestimate the skills of New Zealanders.
Anyway Argentina told the foreign banks to get fucked in 2002. They are doing rather well, now, by any measure.
As is Belgium. The only country in Europe at present who are not impoverishing their people to pay for the bankers balls-up.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3 (+1)
There is a theme here. Christchurch earthquake and building standards, Pike River Mine and mine safety standards, and now the Rena and deregulation of coastal shipping. Some disasters are unavoidable, like the earthquake, whereas in the latter two cases deregulation doubtless contributed to them occurring.
Yeah I agree, but guess what Gareth? the previous Labour govt and the unions clearly don’t and didn’t, because they had 3 terms to sort this out and they didn’t do a bloody thing.
Not ‘Hollywood’ enough you see, they had plenty to say about Warner Brothers being a big evil corporate, but nothing, absolutely nothing to say about the safety of NZ coal miners or coastal shipping or anything else it would seem
Hell, they don’t even pay PAYE, and at the end of the day, that makes them no better than the tax dodging rich elite.
There has been a fundamental loss of values where it counts in this country, and it certainly isn’t all John Keys fault, the left have just as much blood/oil on their hands, and that is a fact.
Like or Dislike:
3 
6 (-3)
Like or Dislike:
7 
4 (+3)
From Red Alert
In mid 2008, our committee examined the International Treaty on amending the Convention of Limitation of Liability for Marine Claims. The Select Committee was chaired by the Hon Mark Gosche, who left parliament in the 2008 election. Maurice Williamson and Kate Wilkinson, who are now both government Ministers were also part of that committee.
The Committee recommended that the Convention should be passed into legislation, so that it could be enforced by New Zealand courts. This would have doubled the $12 million liability limit in the case of the Rena and funded compensation for businesses and property adversely affected.
A briefing to the incoming minister in 2008 noted that the Ministry was preparing to introduce legislation to update the Maritime Transport Act. Guess what? Legislation was never introduced.
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/10/15/shipwreck/
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2011/10/17/why-was-maritime-nz-still-looking-for-bloody-pumps-this-weekend/#comments
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)