K4309

PS, I'd be most appreciative if one of you inteligent gentlemen could explain to me how it is that Kiwirail can't do it's job and needs regulator intervention.

Yup. I understand exactly what you are saying. The onus falls on the businesses. In the case of WI, the tour operators. So why bother with a regulator? Are we supposed to have oversight of high risk industries? Mining? Adventure Tourism? While the WI trial is all over the media, the businesses are getting all the bad rap. The whole reason I'm going on about this so much, is that Worksafe as the regulator were negligent and should be charged and in the same prosecution. It has been stated by various specialists in the field that if Worksafe weren't the regulator and the prosector, i.e

Whilst this may appear to be a major thread drift, this is a very good example of taking action / sanctioning an operator BEFORE a major fatal incident. We can only lament if Worksafe took action against all of the White Island tour operators it knew weren't registered or complying with the Adventure Tourism requirements. The Te Huia Train has ran a red light twice in a month, so NZTA / Waka Koathanger has now banned it from Auckland. Perhaps if more government agencies did their job, and / or didn't wait for disasters, we wouldn't need so many rules and regulations, given the ones w

Yes, indeed. That is why I copied the whole lot from the RNZ story. It will be very interesting to see what comes of this. In isolation the charge on the medical certificate looks pedantic. But it may also be a symptom of someone that is not across their responsibilities and requirements. (this of course just conjecture). Is there an equivalent commercial shipwreck where the Master survived and was prosecuted? I can't immediately think of an example. The Mikhail Lermentov was a fair while ago, but I don't believe the Pilot got prosecuted. He continued to work on the MV Straitsman (I

Goodhew is charged with breaching his duties as a worker on the vessel and in doing so allegedly exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury. The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $150,000 fine. His business, which trades as Enchanter Charters Ltd, is charged with operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel. It alleged Goodhew did not have a medical certificate at the time of the incident. The business is also charged with allegedly failing to address voyage and passage planning in its Maritime Transport Operation Plan, and allegedly failing to identi

We are all obviously very interested in how the prosecution will play out. I think that is what aardvark calls due process, but the substance of the charge against the company, "operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel" is in relation to an expired first aid certificate. Now, I might be wrong, the particular qualification may have a slightly more convoluted name, but for all intense purposes, it is a first aid certificate. This is the reality of where our regulators and watchdogs have gotten to. Worksafe were fully aware all but one of the tour operators were not r

Or worse, the old guy who's ferry got nailed will get prosecuted for having an expired first aid certificate. It is all they have on the Enchanter Skipper, with 5 dead.

This is a very good appraisal of the issue Psyche. Of primary relevance to the original topic, we have this serious crash of a passenger ferry. We now have three govt agencies investigating it. They have said it will take them a couple of years to work out what happened. We can all see what happened. It is beyound me why we can't have just one govt agency investigate this, and determine what happened within a week. If there are some minor details to work out, that can be done in a court of law, assuming what we all believe, that the guy in the fizz boat was negligent. More widely, we

So what?

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 - Wo

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 vi

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

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

MPI is going schitzophrenic. The headline message is "No anchoring or Fishing" in controlled notice areas. But, you are allowed to fish in one CAN area, but not anchor. In the next one down the coast you are allowed to anchor, but not fish. In the third, you aren't allowed to anchor or fish. And it turns out you can anchor if you decide you need to. Or if you live there. On the Barrier, you are allowed to fish, just from structures or the shore. At the Merc's you are allowed to anchor. But there is a complete ban on fishing. In the BoI you can't do anything. Unless you live

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 d

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

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.

Erm, not following you there. 22 people died. Nothing pro-active about that. Or have I misunderstood what your are on about?

1 knot of tide in North Channel shifts 35 million litres of water an hour. To make some basic assumptions, peak tidal flow of 2 knots, and obviously slack water of zero knots, an average tidal flow over a day is probably not going to be far off 1 knot. You are talking in the order of 840million litres a day of water flowing through North Channel. But don't worry, it is us boaties anchoring that is spreading the caulerpa. Idiots.

Don't forget MPI is what used to be MAF. Think meat inspectors and certification of our meat for exports. Robotically follow a rule book, regardless of outcomes. Biosecurity NZ appears to be the sub-silo more responsible for this kind of thing. In terms of fishing or anchoring bans in the Gulf, that is going to cause a lot of trouble. I would expect extensive ignorance and active disobedience. Other than media sound-bites, there is no justification for the level of control and loss of public utility. The sound bite is "boats have spread this by their anchor chains". The reality is the moo

I see that Stuff story dropped this one line from the MPI press release: "Divers found small 20 centimetre to 30 centimetre patches of the seaweed in the North Channel, north-west of Kawau. Finding exotic Caulerpa in another area of Tāmaki is disappointing but not unexpected given the nature of the seaweed. Wonder why the wouldn't mention it was found in North Channel? Very strong tidal flows there, and very few, if any boats ever anchor there. If it was found in Bon Accord then the propoganda about boats spreading it might be true. Not so much when its found in the location wit

When I was into my Alpine Mountaineering I always felt a bit inadequate due to a fear of heights (or at least being uncomfortable with a lot of air under my heals). A wise man told me a fear of heights is a good thing, It is what keeps you alive when climbing mountains.

Haha, neither. It is a vote for people and organisations to do their job properly. We don't have a Workplace health and safety regulator. All we have is a prosecutor. If someone dies in a workplace accident, Worksafe comes along and launches a prosecution against those that aren't dead. It is near physically impossible to be found 'not guilty' if Worksafe prosecute you, by fact that someone is dead. The charge is always 'failing to provide a safe work environment'.* This focus is entirely reactive and punitive. I would argue an effective regulator would be dealing with issues pr

So you've rightly pointed out that NZ has some of the highest rates of workplace accidents and deaths in the developed world. You've also pointed out that Worksafe haven't laid charges in relation to the 22 deaths on White Island, but are laying charges related to procedural matters prior to those deaths. Given those two points, I think it is clear that our workplace health and safety regulatory environment, or our regulator is not fit for purpose. It took 22 deaths for Worksafe to wake up and do its job in regulating the entire White Island industry. Not just the tour operators

What Worksafe failings did Worksafe apologies for when they laid charges against the, what is it, 13 other entities in relation to White Island?