Was justice done? Was justice seen to be done?
Did a lot of people needlessly get dragged before the court for no good reason?
Did those who had their charges dismissed get any compensation for lost time and energy on a case for them that went nowhere?
Is it fair that the law allows a Government agency to simply machine-gun a series of charges about the place, in the hope a few will stick?
Do you machine-gun charge, hoping some will take the path of least resistance and simply plead guilty?
Did some of those that pled guilty do so for essentially the wrong reasons and, if so, do they now regret that?
Does the landing of a single guilty verdict from all those charges justify the approach from WorkSafe?
Given what the judge said about WorkSafe and their reportage of operations on the island, are they potentially as culpable as anyone else? And if they are, where are the charges against them?
Where is any accountability from them at all?
Why do we have a system whereby you get charged and then have those charges dismissed and you can essentially do nothing about it?
Where is WorkSafe and why don't they front to defend their actions? Given that, is there a gross unfairness in the balance of power in matters such as this?
How many of the WorkSafe charges, or indeed the WorkSafe approach to all of this, was a butt covering exercise designed to make them look better than they clearly are?
Accepting this was a tragedy and lives were changed forever, how much of their approach was about looking like they cared and were out to get some people, even if those people were not in any way culpable?
As tragic as the circumstances turned out to be, does some level of responsibility lie with individuals who took part in a tourist exercise involving a live volcano and there fore a level of risk was entered into?
Is the reality not that if you are dealing with nature and you can't control, or tame nature, it is at all times beyond your control and therefore risk is involved and people buy into that risk?
The fact one charge, one contested charge of all the charges, actually stuck - what does that change?
Was justice done?
Was justice seen to be done?
Or are the questions just asked an indication of a sloppy Government department who are as guilty, if not more so, than anyone else who appeared in that court?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
Do you machine-gun charge, hoping some will take the path of least resistance and simply plead guilty?
Did some of those that pled guilty do so for essentially the wrong reasons and, if so, do they now regret that?
Does the landing of a single guilty verdict from all those charges justify the approach from WorkSafe?
Given what the judge said about WorkSafe and their reportage of operations on the island, are they potentially as culpable as anyone else? And if they are, where are the charges against them?
Where is any accountability from them at all?
Why do we have a system whereby you get charged and then have those charges dismissed and you can essentially do nothing about it?
Where is WorkSafe and why don't they front to defend their actions? Given that, is there a gross unfairness in the balance of power in matters such as this?
How many of the WorkSafe charges, or indeed the WorkSafe approach to all of this, was a butt covering exercise designed to make them look better than they clearly are?
Accepting this was a tragedy and lives were changed forever, how much of their approach was about looking like they cared and were out to get some people, even if those people were not in any way culpable?
As tragic as the circumstances turned out to be, does some level of responsibility lie with individuals who took part in a tourist exercise involving a live volcano and there fore a level of risk was entered into?
Is the reality not that if you are dealing with nature and you can't control, or tame nature, it is at all times beyond your control and therefore risk is involved and people buy into that risk?
The fact one charge, one contested charge of all the charges, actually stuck - what does that change?
Was justice done?
Was justice seen to be done?
Or are the questions just asked an indication of a sloppy Government department who are as guilty, if not more so, than anyone else who appeared in that court?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
5 comments:
It was all about protecting WorkSafe from being closely looked at. Standard modern public office ass covering , with a big side dish of zero responsibility.
Someone, somewhere was always going to be scape-goated.
It was never going to be GNS or Work Safe. Enough said.
Standard Worksafe practice, find someone to blame for any supposed offense. Pursue to the enth degree, go to court, get a conviction.
In the case of White Island, how the hell could the owners / operators predict what happened, not even so called experts can predict an eruption.
Perhaps they could warn the owner / operators of hightened activity.
As Mike says, any and all activity involves risk, do Worksafe investigate fatal motor vehicle accidents on Aucklands motorway? Then chase NZTA or the builder or the owner and find them culpable of operating an unsafe roadway.
Of course not.
While the White Island incident should never be forgotten or considered trivial, To prosecute for something totally beyond control by the tour operators beggers belief.
I can imagine Worksafe rubbing their hands and saying "got another one"
Justice has not been served here.
WorkSafe are as culpable as anyone. But then, with 20/20 hindsight and a taxpayer funded purse, they can prosecute and appear as a 'shining knight.' But we know the converse is true, and who in that outfit is held to account? No doubt, many within are paid handsome salaries, but for what ultimate responsibility and accountability? It's time we addressed this and put them under the microscope, just as they have so keenly spent our money doing unto others.
And, just btw, there is no such thing as a risk-free adventure, especially where nature is involved.
The island owners seemed very naive. Knowing well the history I would have something that spelled out that, whilst all known relevant info would be made available to the operators, the responsibilty for notifying punters of the risk, protecting them, and any laiblity was entirely theirs. Concrete roofed bunkers would likely have saved many. The travellers obviously assumed an apparently civilised country would not allow severe unmentioned risk. Dragging so many in at enormous legal costs to them , seems ver unfair.
Post a Comment