I find it really interesting and a little bit sad that people are complaining the government taxpayer should be doing more to help family members trapped in Dubai because of the enormous disruption to flights caused by the Iranian conflict. Sure, the Government sent a Defence Force plane to Iran last year during the Israel-Iran conflict, and during Covid we partnered with Australia to get stranded travellers out of Wuhan in 2020, but I really don't believe there should be an expectation that if you have chosen to travel or chosen to live in another country and then the mud hits the fan for whatever reason, that you will automatically and immediately be rescued.
I had family living overseas in London for a while, and if they had suddenly found themselves in the middle of a war, I'd be doing all I could to get them out. And if there was a plane there, I would want them on it, whether it was a government plane, a commercial aircraft, whatever, I would be doing all I could to get them out of there, absolutely. But I wouldn't expect the government taxpayer to do it for me. I have been stranded overseas before when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull blew up. I was in Paris doing the Paris Marathon, airspace over Europe was closed, travel insurance didn't help, and you were on your own. And there are worse places to be than trapped in Paris in the springtime, I will grant you that. And it was ash blowing into the cities, not Iranian missiles, but statistically right now, although that could change at any minute, there would be more chance of me being run over on the Champs Élysées back then than killed by a missile in Dubai right now.
But that's statistics and that emotion doesn't come into it, I get that. When your loved ones are stranded overseas, you want them home and you want them safe. But is it on the taxpayer to provide that? I don't think so, but am I being a heartless moll? I've been accused of that before. But I just, you know, I get the emotion, I totally do, because I've been there. You want your loved ones home, you want to get home, but I never assumed that my first port of call would be the Government.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
I had family living overseas in London for a while, and if they had suddenly found themselves in the middle of a war, I'd be doing all I could to get them out. And if there was a plane there, I would want them on it, whether it was a government plane, a commercial aircraft, whatever, I would be doing all I could to get them out of there, absolutely. But I wouldn't expect the government taxpayer to do it for me. I have been stranded overseas before when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull blew up. I was in Paris doing the Paris Marathon, airspace over Europe was closed, travel insurance didn't help, and you were on your own. And there are worse places to be than trapped in Paris in the springtime, I will grant you that. And it was ash blowing into the cities, not Iranian missiles, but statistically right now, although that could change at any minute, there would be more chance of me being run over on the Champs Élysées back then than killed by a missile in Dubai right now.
But that's statistics and that emotion doesn't come into it, I get that. When your loved ones are stranded overseas, you want them home and you want them safe. But is it on the taxpayer to provide that? I don't think so, but am I being a heartless moll? I've been accused of that before. But I just, you know, I get the emotion, I totally do, because I've been there. You want your loved ones home, you want to get home, but I never assumed that my first port of call would be the Government.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
I know a kiwi guy in London who loves to travel and every time there is some kind of disaster, he will wait until things calm down a bit and then travel to that country because he knows the airfares and accomodation will be dirt cheap and there will be fewer tourists. I thought of him when this Iran thing kicked off. He is more my type of person than the " keep safe" types who think this world is a big horrible place outside of nz shores, for which it is not. I think people can make their own way back to nz in this type of situation. And then arrive here and do what? But that is up to the individual of course.
My wife and I were 'trapped' in Turkey for 6 months after leaving an imploding Lebanon in mid-2021. We had 90 days to leave but there was no MIQ clearance at the end of that period so we had to apply to become permanent Turkish residents.
I met a lot of incredulity when explaining to Turkish immigration officials and other people including Kurdish friends that our own country wouldn't let us in. Developing countries including India, Nepal and Pakistan were putting on rescue flights to get their citizens home especially from the Middle East. That a so-called 'First World Country' abandoned its citizens during this global crisis was something they found hard to comprehend. "Not enough quarantine facilities," I told them. A Kurdish guy asked me, "Does the NZ govt not have the power to commandeer buildings and convert them for that purpose?"
I wasn't sure whether to tell them that the rules didn't apply if you were a rugby player.
This is what travel insurance is for.
Not the taxpayer's problem.
Tough luck.
From Google AI: "Travel insurance generally did not cover being stranded overseas during COVID-19 if it was due to government-mandated lockdowns, border closures, or general travel restrictions."
How sad, too bad, tough luck.........? Or does it invoke the State's duty of care towards its citizens?
Hi Barend - In response to my post at 9:44
The government response to the covid farce was monstrous and unforgivable in my humble opinion.
I was not considering that as part of my response because I agree with you that the state duty and care towards its citizens was disgusting during that period.
Government safe travel website has always stressed the importance of insurance. If you can't afford it don't travel.
Unfortunately, that previous vile administration ruined that advice and without any heart reneged on their duty.
Not very "kind" eh...
Sorry to spoil your little fantasy with facts Anon 10.23, but it was the insurance industry that pulled the plug on COVID related travel claims, not the government.
And so far as the government's duty of care to its citizens is concerned, that was correctly discharged to protect those citizens already inside the country from infection by incoming travellers. Not by facilitating the return of citizens from outside the country who were far more likely to be already infected.
That response was designed to maximise survival rates across ALL citizens, and prevent the public health system from being overwhelmed. It was risk management at the highest level for the greater good.
Yet apparently, people like Anon 10.23 are in denial of the success of that strategy. They would have happily opened the borders and risked the lives of thousands of New Zealanders, just to avoid a temporary disruption to their personal travel plans. And that's what I call disgusting.
The Jones Boy is oversimplifying the situation as it was during the pandemic. There was a group called "Grounded Kiwis" who put their stories on the internet - including families who were stranded in European and American cities and went just about broke (or just plain broke) paying hotel bills for many months. For many, this was not a matter of "a temporary disruption to their personal travel plans" - far from it.
If Pakistan and Nepal could be bothered ensuring that their citizens got home, why could NZ not? The scaremongering spectre of planeloads of infected people getting off at Auckland International is bunkum. As it was, we had to be cleared by means of a swab test before boarding, and inoculation certificates could have been demanded too - we had our shots in Turkey weeks before flying out. The risk of being infected for returnees would have been lower than for citizens who had stayed home!
Sorry, Jonesy, you missed the target by a long way on this occasion.
I didn't set the targets Barend. Professional public health experts did that after considering the best epidemiology advice available. Wise as you may be on the history of the Western World, I rate the experts' opinion on how best to manage a pandemic as being rather more informed than yours. And that would be the case even if your judgement hadn't been clouded by your lived experience.
Jonesy, opinion was so divided among health 'experts' that one can hardly speak of 'epidemiology advice' as a unitary entity during that period. Many of the figures being bandied about were so Mickey Mouse they could hardly be called upon for evidence of anything. Anyway, the issue here was not 'managing an epidemic' but allowing citizens to return home. That involves an ethical judgement, not a purely scientific one. But all right, even if we make it a purely scientific one, it can be demonstrated that requiring swab tests plus inoculations would result in returnees with lower incidences of infection than the stay-home population.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.