by Gareth Hughes
This morning the Transport Accident Investigation Commissions initial report into the Rena grounding was released and Maritime NZ appeared in Select Committee for questioning. It’s good to get some answers but we are still only seeing a small part of the picture and need an independent inquiry into the Rena and oil spill response.
The accident report shows corners were cut to get to Tauranga before 3am, records were falsified and the crew was confused by a variety of factors before the collision with Astrolabe Reef. I think it shows the need for better regulation in New Zealand’s waters to protect our environment and taxpayers from ships that cut corners because of a commercial imperative. We also need to be seriously considering compulsory shipping lanes for some vessels to stop the likelihood of another Rena occurring.
In Select Committee Maritime New Zealand incredibly argued that the public’s concerns about the oil spill response was down to Maritime NZ’s media management; not at all based in the reality on the ground in the Bay of Plenty. As though if they had managed the media better less wildlife would have be
It is clear Maritime NZ is systemically and critically underfunded. Maritime NZ’s budget was frozen in 2008 and was $3m in deficit for the financial year; the Oil Pollution Fund was also running at a deficit and had been reduced from $12m to only $3.4m and funding of the Rescue Coordination Centre NZ was also running a deficit and its reserves depleted. It baffles the mind to wonder why they reduced cruise ship levies and weren’t taking all the levies available to them when they were in the red. Ultimately the funding problems led to the taxpayer picking up the tab.
Given the Rena’s costs may rise to as much as $130m it strikes me as extremely naive for officials to argue there was little risk of an oil spill so the Oil Pollution Fund could be drawn down to irresponsible levels.
Now we have Kiwis possibly heading off to courts in Europe to get compensation given we have ridiculously low liability limits of only $12m under the Maritime Transport Act and $600,000 under the Resource Management Act. Our Government has been remiss to not adopt the 2001 Bunkers Convention and the 1996 Limit to Liability for Maritime Claims Protocol which would have more than doubled the liability cap for the Rena disaster from $12 million to $29 million.
A 2010 review of their oil spill preparedness argued that they had adequate equipment to deal with a spill of 3500 tonnes, yet when the Rena hit, spilling hundreds of tonnes of oil we needed two aeroplanes full of equipment to travel to New Zealand. Maritime NZ also ignored business and union recommendations for a rapid-response multi-purpose vessel which may have helped in those early days after the spill.
We can learn from the Rena experience and work harder to protect our environment from future oil spills. There are solutions that will protect our valuable coast and ocean environment.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Gareth Hughes on Thu, March 8th, 2012
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Compulsory shipping lanes and a full radar watch similar to aircraft traffic control. Throw in transponders on all commercial vessels in NZ waters that report the vessels ID, location and heading and we’ll get a system in place that would most likely prevent another such accident.
Won’t get it from this government though as that would mean having to raise taxes and put more government online.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
The first rule of idiot proofing things is that idiots are smarter than you. Transponders can be broken, or switched off, and nobody then knows where the vessel is… The requirement for the radar watch already exists in international terms and is ignored because it is too expensive to man and maintain an adequate lookout 24/7.
Military ships know, I know, that at sea there is seldom even anyone on the bridge of these ships. The radar would automatically alarm on a contact, but a reef has no radar signature. Putting a beacon on the reef would help as such a thing WOULD paint on the radar. It would cost a few bucks to do it and maintain it, and that’s a government function and we all know that it is bad for government to do things that private enterprise can do /sarcasm
Idiotlogically motivated government.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
If transponder off, get boarded by navy, all crew imprisoned and the ship impounded. Under those conditions I think we’ll find that the transponder stays on and working.
When I said “radar watch” I meant a ground based one (not one on the ships) to ensure that ships are staying within the compulsory lanes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or you could just stop allowing flag of Convenience ships on our coast.
The equivalent of allowing someone with a Cook Islands scooter license and a truck with a Mexican warrant of fitness to drive on our roads.
The responsibility for accidents like the Rena, or accidents to other ships having to drop standards to compete, is entirely at the door of RWNJ politicians, and organisations like federated fuckwits, who wanted cheaper shipping regardless of the consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kerry,
Cabotage was removed by the 1994 Bolger government.
Something the Labour governments (supported by the Greens) did nothing about for 9 years they were on the treasury benches.
Both the RWNJ and LWNJ governments had the opportunity to reinstate the shipping protection so desired by the Alliance party.
But they did nothing.
In fact the Alliance did nothing neither until 2003 when they asked for cabotage to be reinstated. Fully 9 years later.
Is the Labour/Green government just as culpable?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As I pointed out in a different thread, ther is little difference in any government we might elect these days. The idea that a new broom will come in a sweep away the excesses of the last new broom is crazy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)