K4309

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?

Watch what you wish for. We could have that here. But you would have to fund it. And me. And every other boatie on here. Perfect excuse for a new buearcacy. Fundamentally, we don't have any issues in NZ that aren't already addressed by existing rules and regulations. What this thread is about, the Paihia ferry crash, there are already clear and abundant rules to avoid incidents like that. Just remember, murder is illegal, but we still have murders. Just because you make more rules and regulations doesn't mean people will suddenly stop doing dumb sh*t.

Haha, wasn't on a seasickness medication was he? A bunch of mates chartered a cat in Cuba. First night out was a bit lumpy as there was a cyclone to the north of the country, we were on the south heading towards the Bay of Pigs. One of the non-sailing girls was prone to seasickness so I gave her some Stugeron, a fairly stiff seasickness pill from the UK (not allowed to get it in NZ). She was having a great time. Almost concerningly so. When she started going on about the wild horsemen riding alongside us we thought we'd better carry her downstairs to her cabin. That same trip we had a clo

All these stories of professional crews on large commercial vessels acting like c*nts only reinforces my point about the 'might is right' rule. Whilst it is not a formal legal rule, it is clearly both a law of nature and a law of physics. Small sailing boats just need to stay well away from commercial shipping. Ideally so far away that the colregs never come into play in the first place. I think it is fair to assume any commercial fishing boat anywhere is NOT keeping a proper lookout. On the odd occasion they are, bonus. But if I had a bottle of whisky for every story I heard from so

On the morning of 6 December 1917, the French cargo ship SS Mont-Blanc collided with the Norwegian vessel SS Imo in the waters of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The Mont-Blanc, laden with high explosives, caught fire and exploded, devastating the Richmond district of Halifax. At least 1,782 people were killed, largely in Halifax and Dartmouth, by the blast, debris, fires, or collapsed buildings, and an estimated 9,000 others were injured. The blast was the largest human-made explosion at the time.[1] It released the equivalent energy of roughly 2.9 kilotons of TNT (12 TJ).[2] Mont-Blanc wa

I understand you are correct in the technicalities of the rules IT. I guess what I am saying is a combination of your two points above. A prudent skipper will just stay out of the way of heavy shipping. The long extension of this is to meet his colregs requirements of avoiding a collision. I'm yet to see a situation where a yacht can't maneuver out of the way of a large ship, but the same large ship can maneuver out of the way of that yacht* I verbalise this 'prudent skipper' behaviour (to just stay well clear of heavy shipping) as the 'might as right' rule. *I have two e

This is when we need one of those youtibue videos of a sailing yacht getting ran down by a very large ship, cause they were sailing, or on starboard or something, but overlooked all the other rules like the shipping channels, were under pilot, RAM etc etc. I understand exactly what you are saying IT, esp with regards to the stand on vessel, but when you are in a yacht that can spin on a dime, looking at how to pass a cruise ship that takes 3nm to turn, I think it is far easier for everyone if you take early, obvious action to stay out of it's way, so you don't even get close enough to bec

Interestingly, when I was doing my Yachtmaster qualification, I quoted the "might is right" rule and got failed. I was convinced there was a rule that you had to give way to anything over 500t. I think it was an Auckland Harbour bylaw. Noting I was doing my Yachtmaster in the UK, so the instructor wouldn't have heard about in if it was an Auckland rule. I'm still firmly convinced you should give way to anything over 500t. While its not a rule as per the colregs, I'm fairly sure its a rule according to the laws of physics.

Deflating and inflating regularly wont hurt them at all. Things that might puncture or rip the PVC will, which is possibly a greater risk on how you roll them up, where you store them and what you inflate them on (i.e. gravel, instead of grass). Overall, deflating them and storing them so that they are out of the sun will be far far better than leaving them inflated in the sun. Good practice to have a brush / broom handy when you roll them up, so you can get off any grit, sand or stones that might rub / chaff the pvc when it is rolled up and squashed into a storage spot somewhere.