Jump to content

Safety Inspections for foreign flagged boats


Guest

Recommended Posts

I just watched a thoroughly biased piece on TV3 where some pimple faced dipshit lawyer says we should be putting foreign flagged boats through a Cat 1 inspection.

They provided no counter opinion which makes me wonder if Joe Layperson would watch it and go "what a good idea".

We tried it because Russell Kilvington was trying to justify his salary, it got tested in court and thrown out leaving MNZ with egg all over their face. It is unworkable and illegal. How do we get that message across.

 

In light of my recent issues with the mainstream media it made me angry, so thought I'd vent off here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try not having a TV squid. It works a treat :thumbup:

I haven't seen any wank fests for years now. Just think, if enough people didn't have TVs, TV 3 might go bust or something.

 

There is a fundamental problem with journalism in NZ. I have never seen so many typos and grammatical errors as on the current news websites. I lost all respect for the media after the Chch quakes. John Campbell's outfit was operating just up the road from the house we took over. They had a coffee cart and maybe half a dozen mint as land cruisers, doing nothing. We had one very old Suzuki vitara and some push bikes we scrounged via Facebook. We were getting the water supply back on, John Campbell was using up valuable resources and talking complete sensationalist sh*t.

 

The primary issue is that the majority of the community form their opinions based in what the main stream media says, and it is always wrong, as in this story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found you can leave comments at the bottom of the story on the link above, here's mine

 

 

 

 

A Law change probably would not have saved Nina.

 

Why did your report not include any comment from the international visitors who would be disadvantaged by such a law?

 

This was tried a while ago by Russell Livington, it was tested in the high court and found to be illegal, unworkable and contrary to international treaties NZ has signed. MNZ were left with egg on their faces and looking like blithering amateurs.

 

Bury the idea quickly.

 

 

feel free to join in. Maybe YNZ would have a comment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://bsa.govt.nz/complaints/making-a-complaint

 

This could make you feel better Squid. Make a complaint with the broadcasting standards authority. There were enough factual inaccuracies in there, lacked balance and was complete horse sh*t.

 

Was that pimply faced lawyer actually wearing a cardigan?

 

What's the story with the warped boat? Boats are supposed to have curves in them, where did they get warps from.

 

Note they were questioning if they had a sat phone, then stated the last known position was derived from a cell phone position :think: didn't know my cell phone would work mid Tasman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just watched a thoroughly biased piece on TV3 where some pimple faced dipshit lawyer says we should be putting foreign flagged boats through a Cat 1 inspection.

They provided no counter opinion which makes me wonder if Joe Layperson would watch it and go "what a good idea".

Excluding that Russ dude I'm struggling to see bias or incorrect facts. I do see an opinion you obviously don't like.

 

Will people think it's a good idea? Of course they will from articles like that, you yourself are a good testament that people are willing believing media articles that are marginal and loose with the truth so you can't really blame others for doing the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You astound me KM.

 

How about the headline.? Law change could have saved Nina - Since no one knows what happened to Nina how can anyone suggest a law change that would have saved her? Yet that is used as a pillar of support for inspecting foreign flagged vessels. Did the wet behind the ears lawyer do any research to actually show that inspections would make a difference? Easy enough to find the % of foreign (not inspected) boats leaving NZ (not arriving) that needed assistance vs the % of NZ (thus inspected) boats. I seem to remember this was done at the time of the Rule 21 debacle and the foreigners came out ever so slightly ahead.

 

As to the bias - where was the counter opinion? Where was the interview with foreign skippers who would be adversely affected by such a change? Where was a voice of reason pointing out how utterly unworkable such a law would be, even if you could get around the illegality of it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By your own admission of course Ogre you agree with KM but of course with your own biases you don't see it.

 

You admit that know one knows what happen to Nina and whilst you rightly point out there's no proof a law change would have saved her, you must also therefore acknowledge that there is no proof a law change would not have saved her.

 

Thus, the headline that a law change "COULD" have saved her is completely correct.

 

I make that KM 1, Ogre 0.

 

Carry on

Link to post
Share on other sites
By your own admission of course Ogre you agree with KM but of course with your own biases you don't see it.

 

You admit that know one knows what happen to Nina and whilst you rightly point out there's no proof a law change would have saved her, you must also therefore acknowledge that there is no proof a law change would not have saved her.

 

Thus, the headline that a law change "COULD" have saved her is completely correct.

 

I make that KM 1, Ogre 0.

 

Carry on

 

:D :D :D beautuifully said

Link to post
Share on other sites

Semantics and distracting from the issue, which I'll restate clearly:

 

Any attempt to reincarnate rule 21 would be a disaster for all cruising sailors who travel to another country, including NZ cruisers departing NZ.

After the trial MNZ stopped enforcing Rule 21 but it has never been "removed", and as we have seen there are people out there who would like to see it reinstated.

Recent changes at MNZ are not encouraging in this regard. (I hope Jim is enjoying his retirement)

It is in the best interests of all sailors to shout out a loud and clear NO every time this issue rears its ugly head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, but here, from my own fallible memory the story so far:

 

Winston promises 1000 more policeman. MoT is disbanded and traffic cops become policemen. This leaves some peripheral activities of the old MoT homeless. A new bureaucracy is created called MNZ to deal with things nautical. A chap called Russell Kilvington is given the job of running it. By his own admission he hasn't been on a boat of any sort in his life, but he has a degree in writing rules.

(My opinion) he feels obliged to write a rule or two to justify his salary. Rule 21(??) says foreign flagged pleasure vessels must undergo full Cat 1 inspection before they can depart NZ. teh rule is introduced without warning in the middle of the season so some hundreds of visitors are "trapped" here. They complain vociferously. NZ is boycotted by a large percentage of the cruising fleet.

One brave American (whose name i don't remember) sails to Noumea without clearance, then deliderately sails back to get arrested so the issue can be tested in the courts.

The high court rips MNZ a new rear end for writing a rule that contravenes international treaties we are signatory to (SOLAS?), and is totally unworkable.

MNZ stop enforcing the rule but leave it on the books saying they'll look at it again sometime.

Life goes back to normal.

 

To give them credit the NZ agencies are most of the time very fair and reasonable (eg Boat Alexandra). But to maintain the freedom we currently enjoy to sail from place to place it is important to jump on this sort of nonsense and send a loud message that it will not be tolerated.

 

The big fear is that if NZ does this, then every other country with a coastline will jump on the bandwagon, but they will never agree on what standards to apply creating a minefield of rules and reguolations that will kill international cruising.

Don't believe they could be so stupid? In Aus each state has its own rules and they are all different. Yes, sail from NSW to QLD and your "legal" boat could become "illegal" overnight.

And these are the reasonable places, what about third world tinpot dictators. Heaven help us if the Latin Americans hear of this, or Fiji.

 

ANd to increase the level of anxiety I keep getting off air messages about the changes at MNZ that are very disconcerting. With the retirement of Jim Lott I wonder if there is anyone there with small recreational sailboat experience. Hell it has been suggested to me that even the commercial seamen are being replaced by bean counters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Russ Rimmington, Quoted by the TV news, who? what? where? is this guy cuming from? Does he have a history in yachting? famous? does he have contact with anyone who actually has seen Nina, or can state as to the actual condition she was in?

It is said that she had no radio, does anyone actually know? contact with Bob Mc Davitt was by Sat phone, isn't it optional for a NZ boat to have a sat ph, or SSB.

Someone needs to be able to back up some of these unfounded statements, if they are going to be used to attempt to re-introduce cat1 for foreign vessels

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 80's he sailed 12ft skiffs and owned a half share in a noelex 25 that I sometimes crewed on mainly with the other owner but we did do a nationals at tauranga once ( and won the only race with breeze)

 

Not much to add to that but I wouldn't call him thick. Probably the last mayor Hamilton had that wasn't

Link to post
Share on other sites
Semantics and distracting from the issue, which I'll restate clearly:

 

Any attempt to reincarnate rule 21 would be a disaster for all cruising sailors who travel to another country, including NZ cruisers departing NZ.

After the trial MNZ stopped enforcing Rule 21 but it has never been "removed", and as we have seen there are people out there who would like to see it reinstated.

Recent changes at MNZ are not encouraging in this regard. (I hope Jim is enjoying his retirement)

It is in the best interests of all sailors to shout out a loud and clear NO every time this issue rears its ugly head.

 

Just to be clear, we are talking about Section 21 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994, which is of course a law rather than a rule:

 

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ ... 35660.html

 

It is still in force but you need to know some legalese to understand why. NZ Courts have no power to strike down NZ Acts of Parliament, s21 however doesn't make strict provisions as to what safety standards are required in order for foreign flagged rec vessels. It gives this discretion to the director of the MSA. Now I say the courts cannot strike down statute but what they can do is use a hierarchy of legal rules to 'interpret' the Act where there is any doubt. One of the most important of these rules of interpretation is that as statute is presumed to uphold international treaties NZ is a signatory too, then the statute should be interpreted in such a way as to not breach these treaties.

 

The Court of Appeal ruled as the MTA 1994 was intended to give effect to international treaties and there was no indication it intended to flout it, then the discretion given to the Director was limited by international law.

 

This means that the Director MSA can only enforce s21 to the extent that it does not breach NZs international law obligations and that means he cannot enforce laws outside NZs jurisdiction (the high seas) and cannot go further than UNCLOS. And that means no enforcement of foreign flagged pleasure craft that would in effect be a regulation on the high seas. So basically s21 in effect gives no extra powers and just lies there dormant.

 

More here: http://www.maritimeadvocate.com/law_cas ... h_seas.htm

 

In theory the NZ parliament could create a law that the courts would have to uphold, but it would have to be extremely well drafted to not be 'interpreted' differently and would probably have to have a statement saying that the parliament realised it contravened international law but wanted it anyway. For a nation like NZ that respects the rule of law that just couldn't happen.

 

In my view that means the headline 'law change could have saved Nina' is factually incorrect.

 

Ogre: 1 / KM: 0

 

....unless they meant international law (they didn't).

 

Which actually brings me to what is more likely to happen. Over time as more countries take SAR more seriously and seek more ways to control borders there will come a time when a version of SOLAS for pleasure craft will be enacted by international treaty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...