by Gareth Hughes
Last week the Rena’s captain and its navigator were both sentenced to seven months’ jail after being held responsible for our worst maritime environmental disaster however, they couldn’t be charged under the Resource Management Act because they were foreign seamen.
Now this court case has wrapped up we also need an investigation into the Government’s role before the accident, over the spill, and what needs to happen to make our waters safer.
Last week’s Budget revealed a $35 million appropriation for the Rena, with former Environment Minister Nick Smith estimating it could cost up to as much as $130 million.
The Rena has highlighted how inadequate our cost-recovery mechanisms are, and because successive Governments have sat on their hands for years, it’s the taxpayer picking up the tab.
After the Rena, the Government could have rushed to sign international conventions that would protect taxpayers from the cost of future oil spills, but the Government has been dithering. Government still has not adopted the 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.
The Resource Management Act likewise still has the woefully inadequate maximum $600,000 penalty and tragically this figure is being copied over to the new EEZ Bill.
We also need an independent inquiry into the speed of the Government response to the Rena grounding, maritime regulations, and the capacity of our maritime services to respond to accidents, yet nearly 8 months after the Rena spill, the Government still hasn’t announced a Royal Commission.
I’m urging the Government to do more to protect New Zealand from the economic and environmental cost of future oil spills.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Gareth Hughes on Tue, May 29th, 2012
More posts by Gareth Hughes | more about Gareth Hughes
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
I agree with the points but if there’s an absurd up-side to this, I think it’s to see the current government actually arranging to clean up an environmental problem instead of just leaving it there, assuming it’s done as properly as can be done within reason which remains to be seen. If $130m weren’t being spent on this, it’d probably end up buried in a Roads of National Significance budget or something of that nature long before it saw anything under the Conservation Vote.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
There will not be an enquiry.
It would expose the biggest hazards to the marine environment and the safety of shipping on our coast.
Government and their agency, Maritime New Zealand.
Governments pushing cheaper freight rates at all costs.
Failing to have response capability.
Allowing FOC ships on our coast which would be banned in the EU or USA. (To keep freight rates low for the farming lobby. Joke)
Forcing, and allowing, NZ shipping to cut standards to compete with ships that do not have to pay NZ taxes, or follow NZ labour rules, and can fudge international safety, training maintenance and construction standards, mostly with impunity, unless an accident happens.
And that dysfunctional cockup, Maritime New Zealand.
It is well known in the field that the one sure way to ensure you will never be employed by Maritime New Zealand is to have recent experience in the New Zealand marine industry. Being an ex taxi driver, policeman or real estate agent though, is a sure career move.
Several good people with maritime knowledge have left recently to avoid being associated with the train wreck.
One of my colleagues collects inane actions and statements from Maritime New Zealand.
Some recent gems.
“We are going to solve the shortage of ships captains by making the sea time six months”. Even Liberia, and an Italian passenger ship company, requires 6 years.
“Sailors should not be investigating sailors” Talking about maritime accident investigation. Somehow being an experienced Master or Chief Engineer is seen as an disqualification to investigating marine accidents.
Allowing a ship owner to drill holes in the bow of a ship to get around their own manning rules.
Allowing a coastal ship doing 4 ports a week to have only a Master and two mates. Simple arithmetic would tell them that there is no way that ship can keep within international rest period rules.
Proposing exemptions from manning and certification rules for ships within “near coastal waters” and others within 200 miles of NZ. Which would have allowed ships like rig tenders to operate with ferry skippers certificates. Making a joke of the whole requirement for proper certification. A bit like driving a B train with a moped license.
Reducing the required sea time for Second Mate to 12 months. Which will soon lose NZ our status on the white list.
Failing to have an adequate plan for events like the Rena despite a recent example in Australia to learn from.
“Safety at a reasonable cost” is the motto.
Unfortunately that puts the costs on our wider economy, environment and seafarers health.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Rena has highlighted how inadequate our cost-recovery mechanisms are” – Look at the bright side; it highlights how successful our pollution and bailout subsidies are
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)