Jump to content

Safety Inspections for foreign flagged boats


Guest

Recommended Posts

.....The SAR guys that I have talked to all say the same thing....If you introduce a fee for service they will be pulling far, far more dead bodies.....

They dred the idea that something that is so time critical for a succsesful outcome would have a huge impedement to speedie reporting attached.

Adding costs to rego is impossible to do fairly, without a very complicated system that puts vessels into catogries that may or may not be accurate, and swallow chunks of money into "administration".

 

but the loss of productivity from people not being able to do there normal day job.

 

By definition SAR IS part of their normal day job, which is why there is no dedicated SAR !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight Digression, sorry, could not help it.

BBay, do you know what the size of the NZ military is?

 

Basically it is already just a cadre of permanent staff for our foreign commitments, some SAR and Fisheries protection, and the rest IS a Military reserve. NZ already spends less on the Military as a percentage of GDP than any other western first world country. Fiji has a larger standing Army than we do! We are incapable of defending our shores without foreign assistance. It is a risky situation, and one we may well live to regret....

 

NZ does have resources others want/need. So far, our remoteness has protected us. Our fisheries, water, and just space are desired by others. As the world population increases, the pressure becomes greater... This is why Ausy (with a MUCH bigger military than us) are so frightened of Indonesia.

 

I hope I'm completely wrong, and never live to see it, but I don't think so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post and well put Island Time.

 

Re SAR costs: Having had some experience in this, we need to be a bit sceptical about the costs quoted. The key thing is to differentiate between the way SAR costs are accounted by the different agencies and the actual cost to the taxpayer.

 

Speaking from knowledge of NZDF, but the same probably goes for the others, they are funded through two basic methods. The first is the annual budget, drawn up for known tasks, training, etc and the second is a contingencies fund, allocated for specific objectives as the arise.

 

Now, most of the overheads as has been already pointed out are fixed: staff costs, capital costs etc. So when NZDF say this SAR activity will cost X, most of those costs are going to paid by the taxpayer whether they go chasing Nina, do a training Ex or just eat donuts all day.

 

Where it does make a difference is in the internal accounting. For the annual grant type funding, these agencies have an interest in talking the cost up in order to get a better deal in the next funding round - if its covered by the contingency fund then again its a source of funding they want to exploit, but actually even in this case the additional cost to the taxpayer is going to be small as % of the fixed overheads.

 

Now, this isn't going to be true no matter how many SAR tasks are conducted. At some point the amount of tasks would be far in excess of normal running costs, but I would suggest that's a long way off yet. Unless (and I don't know) private SAR assets need to be contracted in for a given scenario.

 

Food for thought, however I think Squid's point is worth investigating, how much time was spent for SAR on foreign recreational vessels? What % of the overall SAR activity does this represent - probably a good question to put to the ministry there.

 

Lastly - was Nina actually a recreational vessel? Or was she in survey and therefore coded?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question - DId the lawyer approach TV3 or did TV3 approach the lawyer? Since the Nina story was pretty well dead at the time maybe it was the lawyer. Which to my mind is scary. Turns out he is a lecturer at Victoria, why would you risk making a fool of yourself promoting a rule rubbished and tossed aside by the high court 20 yrs ago?

Or was he put up to it by some other party?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are saying -

There isn't an issue.

Any rule changes will stop cruisers coming

and the cost of SAR's is less than cruisers are spending here.

 

Is that a fair assessment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And - if this isn't shut down every time it raises its head it has the potential to shut down international cruising as we have known it to date.

That seems extreme at the moment, but is definitely a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
first is the annual budget, drawn up for known tasks, training, etc and the second is a contingencies fund, allocated for specific objectives as the arise.

Not any longer. No contingency fund. If something takes place outside normal operation, they have to pullback on something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree Ogre.

 

The way to kill anything political is to ignore it.

 

If you think we have 120 politicians hanging off every word some lawyer spouts on TV3 on a Sunday, even the lawyers without pimples, then I'm not convinced you have quite the level of scepticism in you to truly understand politics.

 

The equation is in my mind very simple. Someone spouts off. If their spouting goes into a void as often it does, those very few politicians that might have noticed will correctly conclude "who cares", and this is indeed correct, who cares?

 

If a fuss seems to be being made in the wider press, they will conclude that (they don't like this), they may have to form an opinion.

 

Now opinions in politicians are dangerous things, what happens is if there are enough politicians with opinions, eventually one of these politicians with an opinion will also be one who is only marginally likely to be elected.

 

Now this is pretty terrible since at this point he/she/it will decide that they need to be perceived as a dynamic action-oriented person, appearing on TV, fighting for the greater good, appearing on TV, caring for their fellow man, appearing on TV and occasionally having lunch with journalists, between their TV appearances.

 

Now, when they're forming their opinion, the opinion they form has to be an opinion that actually involves doing something, so they can be dynamic, appear on TV and all that. If the downside of that opinion only affects, say, foreign boat owners, all of whom are obviously filthy rich, non working and most importantly non voting persons of a foreign persuasion, well I'm sure you can join the dots.

 

So in this specific case, you could :

 

(1), stay silent and trust in the inherent apathy of politicians and the miserable ratings of tv3 on Sundays

 

(2), get noticed and have a politician either :

 

(2a), Decide to be dynamic, appear on TV and be seen to be making legislation that saves lives, doing something, appearing on TV to say they're saving money (even if they're not) and lives (they won't mention that those lives are of filthy rich foreign non voting boat owner types), preventing the drowning of puppies and so on

 

(2b) decide to appear before the voting public vigorously in favour of doing nothing, in a very dynamic, telegenic way of course. That they are determined to protect the rights of filthy rich, non working foreign boat owning types, most of whom will drown themselves at the first opportunity (and their puppies), at great expense to the New Zealand government but that doesn't matter because it's the principle of foreigners having the inalienable right to drown themselves at NZ government expense that it's so important for them to protect (yes, I was determined to mention inalienable rights somewhere) .

 

 

Now of course as you know I pretty much only care about the whole issue only to the extent that I think it's a great opportunity to wind up people who do care about it, but I say to you, "Trust in apathy". If the public appear apathetic, if no one talks, apathy will spread through parliament quicker than the most contagious of zombie plagues, conquering all and presenting to our dedicated representatives in the legislative chamber yet another opportunity to do what they truly excel at, nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe I was listening, in fact I have been the whole time as I'd also leave it just as it is given a choice. But being realistic I just don't see that as a longer term winning plan in the times we are living in. I see Mark also recognises where the future problem will come from if no one goes on a pro-active offensive.

 

Now, when they're forming their opinion, the opinion they form has to be an opinion that actually involves doing something, so they can be dynamic, appear on TV and all that. If the downside of that opinion only affects, say, foreign boat owners, all of whom are obviously filthy rich, non working and most importantly non voting persons of a foreign persuasion, well I'm sure you can join the dots.
Oh by the way that pimply faced lawyer is a Maritime Law lecturer who also advises the Govt on nautical legal matters. So he ain't no dumbarse random making wild statements everyone will just ignore.

 

I know the intense passion you have for this specific subject and that's great but I do think it's blinding you to other possible outcomes and/or options.

 

I think I need to employ Mark as my speech writer :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark - I hear you and I am torn between wanting to tell this guy where he is wrong and wanting to totally ignore it and hope it goes away (but what if it doesn't?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - who else is going to speak up against it? Not YNZ, not MNZ, maybe MIA????????????

Unfortunately the international cruising fleet has no representative common voice, in fact i'd guess 90% of the fleet would roll over every 7 years or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SO KM we agree in principle but disagree on how best to deal with it??

You think give a concession and try to retain control and I say fight the bastards tooth and nail - give them an inch and we're screwed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to keep the wolves from the door is to start a national committee that can meet and discuss this all the time. It should have reps from YNZ, Industry, Govt, Opposition, NZ Cruisers, Foreign Cruisers, iwi of course, anybody else as long and the pro and antis balance out.

 

Basically this committee will not come up with any firm recommendations but it will give the public (do they care?) a warm fuzzy feeling that the 'experts' are on the case and the media will have someone to get a mealy mouthed PR statement from after every loss at sea.

 

I imagine that the committee could probably agree on a few things which would give the appearance of 'something being done' namely:

 

- Issue safety leaflets to all visiting yachts.

- Point out foreign yachts should be able to buy an epirb duty free.

- Offer a basic safety check for free.

 

I am deadly serious about this - seems to have worked in the UK for years as far as I can see. Squid, throw your frustrations into getting a committee together.

 

A word of caution though, we have been talking about new laws, but actually there is plenty on the statute books that allow inspections of foreign flagged vessels already which is ok under international law - as Alexandra found out. s54 or 55 of the MTA 1994 from memory as well as others.

 

So there is always a risk that although MNZ doesn't reintroduce Cat 1 (actually I believe it was just epirb and SSB rather than full cat 1??), they just enforce strictly the measures they already have. Although I doubt they will as this will cost MNZ a lot of money and I don't see any law yet that allows them to charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not any longer. No contingency fund. If something takes place outside normal operation, they have to pullback on something else.

 

just to keep some context....there is probably a differance between Oz and NZ in this....

but the "pull back" first up here is in operational training.

And again from someone at the top..."real operations not only meet "training" critera, but are the very best training........

Static training is to keep operational readiness.....

Active operations negate most of the need (and are better) for continuous operational readiness.

By virtue, they provide situations that "made up" training cant.

Further...if there is not a constant and reasonable "static training" component (that can be finacialy swapped for active duty"...then the SAR people are not adequately trained.

Again it may be differant in NZ , but here in OZ active operations do count as "time".

As a further point...

If it has got to the stage that the situation has out stripped what I have stated, then It is obvious that a fully funded and dedicated SAR is needed.

NZ and OZ has obligations under international treaties.

Problems with our domestic "private" vessels are miniscul in terms of cost. Pollution control monitoring alone (in flight time and crews) ...think rena..blow the

finacial argument that two or three anual lost private boats are in any way a burden worth the damage of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are some crazy bastards...

 

let me give you a couple of quotes.

.

 

"Argue for your limitations and they will be yours"

.

And.

" People who insist on lmitations are usualy those who either have no intention of testing them, or a wealthy enough to pay their way passed them"

.

And

"Most small boats dont go to sea to die. The people who wish to apply unreasonable rules and finacialy constraints , care far less about the well being of the sailor than the couple of cents that a rescue may entail"

"They are at best pretensious in their sincerity, and at worst ridiculously foccused on something that makes no differance, in a world that needs quiet exchange of people."

"If you chose to limit the travelers, the sailors, to one type, then those places, those remote places will sadly lose "

Link to post
Share on other sites
SO KM we agree in principle but disagree on how best to deal with it??

You think give a concession and try to retain control and I say fight the bastards tooth and nail - give them an inch and we're screwed.

Yeap that pretty much it but rather than concede I'd say 'run a block' on the most likely path that will lead to any changes to the Regs, should they get a grumpy on. As much as I'd like to join your fight if you look at the arsenal both sides have, sadly yours just doesn't have the big guns nor the numbers the other team has, should all hell break loose. So once they took that inch, an inch you maybe could grudgingly live with, they would have a totally free unopposed ride all the way to the full mile, the very mile you want to keep, and just like that you've lost it all.

 

As I said earlier and now Dan also, this passion of yours is the very stuff needed to lead the charge to run that block.

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...