The reason I ask is there is an awful lot of ducking and diving going on by authorities and you get the idea that not being "legally responsible" for something is more important than having systems and equipment in place to prevent disasters happening in the first place.
A few weeks back I asked why there were no oil booms stored at the Port of Tauranga to deal with a major open-sea spillage. I understood the port was not legally responsible, but as a corporate citizen shouldn't it have been ready for the eventuality?
Now, I believe that the port has radar equipment capable of tracking ships and the Astrolabe Reef is within its range. Only it seems that large vessels filled with toxic chemicals are not routinely guided through our formerly pristine waters and fishing grounds because our port's legal responsibilities end 5.5 kilometres from its pilot zone.
The Port of Auckland has the same legal responsibilities as Tauranga, but it tracks ships from as far away as Cape Reinga and when they are within 100km of the port they are contacted by the authority and guided in.
Now, shouldn't our port do the same thing?
Surely if we have the equipment to safely guide shipping into our port then shouldn't we use it to the extent of its abilities?
Wouldn't guarding our Bay waters be one of the prime objectives of a local body or business?
And a question for the bureaucrats ... is it true that for every 10 volunteers working on cleaning up our beaches we must have one supervisor in charge?
So, if 5000 people wanted to save our beaches we need to have 500 with the deemed experience to lead them?
If there is not one supervisor to 10 workers then all the other people cannot work?
Sounds like bureaucratic nonsense to me.
FROM out of adversity comes opportunity.
It seems that not everyone in the Bay sees doom and gloom arriving with the Rena.
There is a silver lining for some in the black clouds of oil that have hit our beaches, put off tourists and killed our wildlife. And the happy people will be those running our city's swimming pools.
For when the beaches are closed and gluggy, on a hot day we will be forced to taking to the cooling waters of city baths.
I can hear the cash registers whirring from here.
AND HERE I want to unreservedly apologise to Josh White and all the people in Christchurch for my comment last week "Well, the biggest news story in New Zealand this year is happening on our doorstep."
I was referring to the Rena when, of course, the biggest story of this year has to be the tragedy that has happened in Christchurch.
Clearly I had a brain explosion - or else I was hit by a dose of provincial parochialism that I so detest. Josh, who is moving to the Bay, objected to my comment.
He was quite right and I want to thank him for pointing out that what we are experiencing pales when compared to events in the nation's second city.
WHY is it when someone coins a phrase to describe something the TV media hijacks it and uses it constantly, even when it is wrong.
The initial oil to hit our beaches was tar-like and was described, almost perfectly, as Marmite-like. But when the waves of oil started rolling in the consistency was much thinner.
I sat, astonished, watching a TV report where the reporter described the oil as "Marmite-like", despite the fact it was being poured from a container and looked exactly like black paint.
Clearly they were either blind, or have never eaten Marmite. Whatever, they were certainly lemming-like.
richard@richardmoore.com
