Pauhia ferry crash

[aardvarkash10 960]

23 hours ago, K4309 said:

This focus is entirely reactive and punitive. I would argue an effective regulator would be dealing with issues prior to fatallities. Have you ever heard of worksafe taking a prosecution when nothing happened? As in where there had not been an accident, but that an audit found unsafe work practices?

 

Yes, that is EXACTLY what happened this week in the White Island prosecutions against the helicopter operators.  All 3 pleaded guilty to breaches of the HSE Act

[K4309 258]

1 minute ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Yes, that is EXACTLY what happened this week in the White Island prosecutions against the helicopter operators.  All 3 pleaded guilty to breaches of the HSE Act

Erm, not following you there.

22 people died. Nothing pro-active about that. Or have I misunderstood what your are on about?

[aardvarkash10 960]

23 hours ago, K4309 said:

* I see another 3 companies leaded guilty to White Island charges today. This is the classic tactic. Spend millions on investigation and preparing a prosecution. Wait till the day before the trial starts, then offer lesser chargers of which they plead guilty to. It is just a standard negotiation situation. If the original charges were appropriate, why not press them? If the lesser chargers are now deemed appropriate, why were the other charges put, several years and several million dollars wasted? Its all just a charade.

As above.  The plea bargaining is a very normal judicial process.  It reduces the cost to all parties while recognising the key elements of the charges albeit at a lower level.

Fact remains, Worksafe prosecuted  the companies on the basis that they had failed to take appropriate action ot reduce risk, even though no-one was harmed by those companies or by the risk they experienced.

[aardvarkash10 960]

3 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Erm, not following you there.

22 people died. Nothing pro-active about that. Or have I misunderstood what your are on about?

The charges were against the helicoper operators who responded to the event.  They had nothing ot do with putting the tourists there, they were involved in getting them out.  No-one was injured or died as a result of hte actions of htehelicopter companies.

[Steve Pope 243]

Isn't that similar to white Island, they had (have?) a 1 to 5 level of risk, at the time it was set at 2 I would feel certain that any of the folk taking people out there did not for a moment consider there was a serious risk and of course the "tourists" would have considered themselves safe because if it wasn't then the people taking them wouldn't have. Life is full of unintended consequences, OH bugger It never occured to me that a live Volcano could possibly blow. In reality it was just a little belch, unfortunately the human body (in fact most bodies) can't cope with excessive heat and excessive sulphur fumes and lack of Oxygen. Tragic, immensly so. Will something similar happen sometime? Of course it will! Worksafe as with most rule / law systems only reacts retroactively. There was a time when there were safety inspectors actively checking sites and workshops to try to keep them as safe (for workers) as possible, not any more, years ago they were almost entirely eliminated. Think of the White island helicopter firm, (and others) not being prosecuted for anything on the day but  being retroactively prosecuted for not having a paper trail associated re any risks associated with flying to white island etc. etc.  facing up to $500,000 fines, per charge, follow the money. And of course said pilot was one of the Hero's in the rescues that took place on that day.

[CarpeDiem 430]

12 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Erm, not following you there.

22 people died. Nothing pro-active about that. Or have I misunderstood what your are on about?

They plead guilty to the charges of taking people there without a suitable h&s plan. 

The charges all applied to actions/activity BEFORE the incident. Some of the companies that plead guilty didn't even take tourists there on the day. 

One of the pilots who plead guilty (a) didn't take people there on the day; and (b) was just awarded the the highest possible civilian award for bravery. 

 

[K4309 258]

49 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

As above.  The plea bargaining is a very normal judicial process.  It reduces the cost to all parties while recognising the key elements of the charges albeit at a lower level.

Fact remains, Worksafe prosecuted  the companies on the basis that they had failed to take appropriate action ot reduce risk, even though no-one was harmed by those companies or by the risk they experienced.

Worksafe only brought the prosecution because 22 people died, and Worksafe got caught out not doing their job.

The fact that those operators were only involved in the rescue on the day has nothing to do with it.

The key point is that Worksafe only did something after the disaster. My prior point is that, if they were an effective regulator, they would be doing things before the disaster.

[K4309 258]

26 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

They plead guilty to the charges of taking people there without a suitable h&s plan. 

The charges all applied to actions/activity BEFORE the incident. Some of the companies that plead guilty didn't even take tourists there on the day. 

One of the pilots who plead guilty (a) didn't take people there on the day; and (b) was just awarded the the highest possible civilian award for bravery. 

 

Noting also that the professional rescue services were stood down, to leave people to die slowly and painfully on the island. It was the private operators that got in and saved lives. This point was not widely covered by the MSM.

I was disgusted by that. And then of course Worksafe come in and prosecute them.

Rescue helicopters from all over the upper north island were dispatched (as per MSM coverage), then all parked up and Whakatane aerodrome and shut down. Then MSM went on to say how many were rescued, giving the implication they were rescued by rescue services. What we have here is a govt and govt agencies that knew full well beforehand that there were commercial tourism activities going to that island daily, but were too hopeless to do their jobs once the sh*t happened. The govt was happy to take the GST and tax from those operators, but ran for cover at the first sign of trouble.

Sorry, rant over. This aspect of it really disgusts me.

[CarpeDiem 430]

14 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Worksafe only brought the prosecution because 22 people died, and Worksafe got caught out not doing their job.

The fact that those operators were only involved in the rescue on the day has nothing to do with it.

Some of the helicopter operators had tourists on the island during the incident.  Some of those tourists died. 

There's no public interest in bringing prosecutions without death, injury, illness or disease.

The public has absolutely zero appetite in spending millions of dollars on witch hunts.

Had Worksafe gone after them 10yrs ago, spending $5M charging them for not having h&s plans in place, there would of been public outrage. Their would of been David and Goliath stories as businesses went under unable to cope with the legal costs. 

Worksafe are essentially tigers without teeth, until an incident occurs. 

It's a conundrum that won't be answered on this forum. 

[K4309 258]

5 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

Some of the helicopter operators had tourists on the island during the incident.  Some of those tourists died. 

There's no public interest in bringing prosecutions without death, injury, illness or disease.

The public has absolutely zero appetite in spending millions of dollars on witch hunts.

Had Worksafe gone after them 10yrs ago, spending $5M charging them for not having h&s plans in place, there would of been public outrage. 

Worksafe are essentially tigers without teeth until an incident occurs. 

It's a conundrum that won't be answered on this forum. 

I disagree. On the contrary, there is substantial public interest in taking H&S prosecutions before their are deaths and injuries. If it is your partner, parent or child that doesn't come home, you are very interested in the regulators actions.

This is the difference between a regulator and a prosecutor.

If our H&S system is going to be effective, it needs to be proactive, not reactive. This is the basis of every good H&S plan in the country. Yet the regulator doesn't follow the same principles.

More so, it would not have cost $5m to prosecute the WI operators that didn't have H&S plans. It is as straight forward as prosecuting someone when there is a death.

[CarpeDiem 430]

17 minutes ago, K4309 said:

I disagree. On the contrary, there is substantial public interest in taking H&S prosecutions before their are deaths and injuries. If it is your partner, parent or child that doesn't come home, you are very interested in the regulators actions.

This is the difference between a regulator and a prosecutor.

If our H&S system is going to be effective, it needs to be proactive, not reactive. This is the basis of every good H&S plan in the country. Yet the regulator doesn't follow the same principles.

More so, it would not have cost $5m to prosecute the WI operators that didn't have H&S plans. It is as straight forward as prosecuting someone when there is a death.

No there isn't.

The evidence clearly shows that the public don't want there tax money spent on witch hunts.  The public expect that companies follow the law. The public expects that companies have plans and systems in place. 

In these cases these companies did not consult with GNS and did not provide adaquate warning to their customers of the risks.

We don't need to spend millions checking companies are doing the right thing when we're already spending millions dealing with the incidents. What we need is for businesses to start following the exceptionally clear, we'll documented law and stop cutting corners so that the incidents stop.

I don't want my tax money spent making sure a company has the appropriate safety measures in place. I want the company directors to be spending their own money, paying the same outfit that Worksafe would pay, to ensure that they are compliant.

That's the outcome I would like to see. 

 

[K4309 258]

I can't really believe we are even having this discussion. So you don't think it's in the public interest to stop people dieing at work?

Here is an interesting parallel. With food safety, we don't actually wait till people are dead before doing something. But with workplace safety, it is perfectly acceptable to just wait for people to die?

So what benefit is there of having a regulator?

 

Dreamview Creamery's raw milk recalled after discovery of listeria

 

Dreamview Creamery's raw milk recalled after discovery of listeria | Stuff.co.nz

[CarpeDiem 430]

Your example is contrary to what you propose.

The milk has already been sold, and it was past its use by date when it was recalled.

Anyone who hadn't consumed it by the time it was recalled should of already thrown it out.

By the time the recall came out the damage was already done.  Can you see the irony? 

I already know you wouldn't support million dollar witch hunts where a bunch of investigators go around taking companies to court and fining them cause they failed to get their h&s plan signed off by a consultant. I cannot believe you're pretending you would.

You've just been bitching about the new standards for drilling holes cause of the overhead and complexity it creates. Yet in the next breath you expect us to believe that you think it would be acceptable for some regulator to bring a prosecution for not complying with that standard when there was no incident or risk to an employee?

[harrytom 643]

H&S is a complete joke, we have monthly H&S meetings at work, resolutions reached but not followed. A lot of policies are detrimental to the business. Just get the job done. We recently had a work accident out on the road at a customers site. The person involved should of been instantly sacked but because we were short of staff. The employee involved(newbie)wasn't time(apparently to sign them off)had the incident and company wearing the cost due to failure on side of the company.

A few yrs a go a person was killed on our site. Due to being in a hurry ,opened dock door to see what was taking driver so long to reverse on too dock, at the same time vehicle lurched back and squashed trainers head. If the trainer was doing his job properly would of been outside guiding trainee on to dock, completely preventable. No prosecutions, 

[Psyche 633]

That does not sound like an H&S issue, its sounds like bad management practices that places employees at risk. Lets put this another way how would the workplace be without H&S culture? 

[harrytom 643]

46 minutes ago, Psyche said:

That does not sound like an H&S issue, its sounds like bad management practices that places employees at risk. Lets put this another way how would the workplace be without H&S culture? 

H&S is required but some the ideas are impractical.  Working in a Sheetmetal shop late 70s,the Labour inspector turned up and explained how a guard was required on the pressbrake machine,was pointed out once foot off pedal machine stopped,But we put the guard on as per instructions,the labour man came back to inspect,was then shown certain operations couldnt take place with guard on,thats when he walked away and never returned.

[K4309 258]

10 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

Your example is contrary to what you propose.

The milk has already been sold, and it was past its use by date when it was recalled.

Anyone who hadn't consumed it by the time it was recalled should of already thrown it out.

By the time the recall came out the damage was already done.  Can you see the irony? 

I already know you wouldn't support million dollar witch hunts where a bunch of investigators go around taking companies to court and fining them cause they failed to get their h&s plan signed off by a consultant. I cannot believe you're pretending you would.

You've just been bitching about the new standards for drilling holes cause of the overhead and complexity it creates. Yet in the next breath you expect us to believe that you think it would be acceptable for some regulator to bring a prosecution for not complying with that standard when there was no incident or risk to an employee?

You will note that no one died, yet action was taken. That is the contrast.

How is it that all 13 entities involved with WI were doing it wrong? Including non-commercial govt agencies such as GNS. And Worksafe itself.

It is not normal for 13 different sets of Directors to all make the same mistake. If it were just the commercial operators we could cynically argue they were just out to make money. But that isn't the case.

For 13 sets of Directors to allegedly get it wrong, there is a systemic failure in our regulatory system. What we have now is blanket prosecutions, and a pseudo blanket ban on going near or onto the Island. I can't see how that is adding any value. It is just Worksafe throwing it's weight around after the fact.

There are several other active volcanoes in the North Island. What is the difference in H&S practices? Should we be closing all access to the Tongariro National Park? Eruptn has posted a good link about that.

No one has yet answered what failing it was that Worksafe apologised for...

[K4309 258]

Whakaari / White Island: Finger pointed back at WorkSafe

Two years on from the disastrous Whakaari / White Island eruption, a lawyer representing Australian victims says the regulatory shortcomings are "terrifying".

WorkSafe has charged 13 parties with health and safety breaches, but the regulator is facing heavy criticism for its own shortfalls.

An independent report into WorkSafe's actions leading up to the eruption shows it fell well short of good practice, regulating health and safety at the Bay of Plenty island.

Rita Yousef, who is acting for some Australian eruption victims and their families, is disturbed.

"It does appear that corners were cut as well, which is quite terrifying given what ended up happening."

She told RNZ her clients had been failed by many groups, before and after the tragedy, and WorkSafe was one of them.

"It is disappointing that, not only is the New Zealand compensation system extremely inadequate - if not pretty much non-existent for them - but on top of that, there is a regulator that has the responsibility to maintain and look after safety and they obviously haven't done it."

The report said unregistered operators took tourists onto the island for five years leading up the eruption - WorkSafe knew, but didn't sanction them.

White Island Tours was registered, but its safety audits didn't assess volcanic risk, only walking hazards.

Dr Simon Connell researches accidents and the law - he is shocked by the findings.

"It is crystal clear that something has gone horribly wrong, if you can have an audit of an adventure activity on an active volcano, that doesn't take into account the safety issues caused by being on an active volcano," he said.

"That's not a subtle, technical, legal nuance point. That is a serious, serious issue in terms of mindset."

He said there was a conflict of interest for WorkSafe, being both the regulator, and the prosecutor: "In the sense there's an incentive there for WorkSafe to point the finger elsewhere and to build a strong case that says the fault and responsibility lies elsewhere."

"If there had been an independent adventure tourism entity, that had had the role that WorkSafe had had, I would not at all be surprised to see them on the list of parties being prosecuted. And it does seem to me that's a bit of a gap here, if WorkSafe has had failings in the background of this event and there's nobody that's looking at them in terms of holding them to account via prosecution."

University of Canterbury law professor John Hopkins heads New Zealand's Institute of Law, Emergencies and Disasters.

He said the Whakaari explosion, and the failures highlighted since, had brought the country's whole adventure activities safety system into question.

"It's not entirely clear as to who's responsible for the accreditation system, I think it's too easy to evade responsibility. And I think it creates the idea that adventure tourism is regulated in a robust way, but I don't think that's the case."

He said: "The regulatory scheme creates the impression of safety and comfort in the adventure industry."

"I would suggest that's always been weak, too weak, in my view."

The government is currently reviewing the legislation.

In a statement, WorkSafe chief executive Phil Parkes said the agency deeply regretted its shortcomings and he was "fully committed" to change.

But when RNZ asked to interview him and Workplace Safety Minister Micheal Wood about what these changes were, neither would talk.

Whakaari / White Island: Finger pointed back at WorkSafe | RNZ News

[K4309 258]

11 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

Your example is contrary to what you propose.

The milk has already been sold, and it was past its use by date when it was recalled.

Anyone who hadn't consumed it by the time it was recalled should of already thrown it out.

By the time the recall came out the damage was already done.  Can you see the irony? 

I already know you wouldn't support million dollar witch hunts where a bunch of investigators go around taking companies to court and fining them cause they failed to get their h&s plan signed off by a consultant. I cannot believe you're pretending you would.

You've just been bitching about the new standards for drilling holes cause of the overhead and complexity it creates. Yet in the next breath you expect us to believe that you think it would be acceptable for some regulator to bring a prosecution for not complying with that standard when there was no incident or risk to an employee?

So you will see from the RNZ report that everything you say isn't needed was actually happening. There were registrations of the tour operators and audits of their systems. So all that cost and BS was already there.

Worksafe audited safety plans that covered walking hazards only, on an active Volcano. As a Director, if you've had your safety plans audited by the Regulator, and they passed, would you not think you have discharged your responsibilities under the H&S Act?

The report said unregistered operators took tourists onto the island for five years leading up the eruption - WorkSafe knew, but didn't sanction them.

White Island Tours was registered, but its safety audits didn't assess volcanic risk, only walking hazards.

Worksafe fell well short of good practice, regulating health and safety at the Bay of Plenty island.

 

[aardvarkash10 960]

54 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Worksafe audited safety plans that covered walking hazards only, on an active Volcano. As a Director, if you've had your safety plans audited by the Regulator, and they passed, would you not think you have discharged your responsibilities under the H&S Act?

 

Did Worksafe audit the safety plans?  Or did a third party audit them?

We have stepped a LONG way from the original subject.  If there is a link, its the question about oversight, regulation, and enforcement of laws intended to improve or assure safety.

Pehaprs we should move from volcanology and tourism back to basic seamanship.