Written By: - Date published: 2:25 pm, November 29th, 2008 - 44 comments
Categories: Environment, International, national/act government -
Tags:
Foreign Minister and Whaling Spokesperson Murray McCully has announced that New Zealand will be breaching international law by not undertaking search and rescue operations if whalers or protesters get into trouble in New Zealand’s zone of responsibility.
Great. So, in a week and a half our new government has abandoned its part in the global effort to combat climate change (even calling into question whether these is a problem to confront), called a close ally’s anti-climate change policy irrational, and, now, we’re going to break the Law of the Sea.
Well, we’re not really going to thumb our nose at the international community. McCully just doesn’t have a handle on his portfolio yet. He can’t have understood the consequences of what he was saying when he said we won’t carry out search and rescue. I’m sure Mfat and Civil Defence will soon be briefing him, pointing out to him that we have a legal obligation to carry out search and rescue when it is required in our zone of responsibility and offering the opinion that violating a fundamental and long-established piece of international law for no apparent reason is not in New Zealand’s interest.
Still, a pity that after nine years in opposition and dealing with whaling issues for years (including last year when New Zealand rescued a gravely ill Japanese whaler) that McCully seems to have no idea about his portfolio. A pity, too, that he didn’t recognise his own ignorance and ask for advise from officials before publicly reneging on our international responsibilities and making us look like fools or rogues in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
QtR – What you’ve described could be termed “natural selection”
Nah, I envisage something like all-encompassing “risk taker’s insurance”. After all, we don’t run ACC like that… your premium covers you whether you’ve put just the tip of your finger into the cigar cutter, your entire digit, or an altogether more tender piece of your anatomy.
If you want to indulge in risk taking behaviour you buy “idiot insurance” which covers you for anything which might happen while taking risk. If you take risk without it, once you’ve been pumped dry of seawater, you’d be pumped dry of money so the rest of us didn’t foot the bill for your foolishness.
I just don’t want my taxes and ACC premiums covering those people who wish to spend their free time trying to recreate their favourite scenes from “Jackass”. I’d rather them be kept to improve care for people who have had accidents in the true (i.e. “unforeseeable occurences”) sense of the term.
Hey, I don’t claim to have ironed out all the wrinkles, I’m just advocating a principle…
So, let me guess, we get the lawyers in to decide who’s an idiot and who isn’t?
[deleted]
[lprent: bye. Pointless wasting more time on this bozo. Added to spam]
I think we can all agree that trying to get between a large trawler and a whale in the deep blue sea when such vessel is trying to fire a harpoon with an explosive tip is not really a “true” accident, but a premeditated event that is going to end in trouble one way or another.
Same applies to Base Jumpers, Rock Climbers, Deep Sea Divers, yada yada yada. I bet their insurance company takes into account how they spend their time.
I would love to see the Sea Shepard try to get insurance. Question. what is the intended description of your trip. Answer. To get between a Japanese trawler and a whale in the deep southern ocean and disrupt them from firing their explosive tipped harpoon. Yeah, that will easily get marked ‘accepted’.
When is sea protest safe and acceptable then? What about the Frigate Canterbury going to Mururoa in 1973? Or would you condemn that too?
gomango that was a fascinating glimpse into your life and career. Like Janet I wish you the best of luck teaching.
Just out of interest would you pronounce your name “go man, go” or “go mango”?
Janet
Are you seriously comparing a warship to a protest vessel? A ship designed to get in harms way, y’know go to war compared to a converted whatever it was in a former life?
One represents the state and all her power, the other does not, not even a little bit, not even close.
bill brown: I imagine most of the risk-taking behaviour would be codified in regulations and only a relatively small proportion would fall within a grey area and thus be litigated. Much like ACC claims.
As sweeetdisorder says, base jumpers, rock climbers and deep sea divers are already assesed on risk, as are smokers, when applying for life or health insurance. Adding harpoon dodgers and other activities which are clearly risky to the list isn’t difficult.
I do like QtR’s idea though… I wonder if it could be applied to those other insurances as well… “Hello? Uhhh, look, when I took out my insurance I said I didn’t do anything risky? Well, it’s just that my chute hasn’t opened and uhh… I was wondering if I could amend my policy.”
“Please hold, an operator will be with you shortly…”
teehee, very good Rex. Even the girl liked it.
Funny how technology changes things so quickly; just a few years ago it would have been incomprehensible.