In einer umstrittenen Entscheidung hat Chris Bishop nicht nur Pläne zur Anschaffung eines schweren Schleppers, der Schiffbrüche im Meerbusen verhindern könnte, gestrichen, sondern hat auch den Vertrag für den vorübergehenden Schlepper, der nach dem Beinahe-Unfall mit der Kaitiaki vor zwei Jahren eingestellt wurde, beendet. Diese Entscheidung ist sowohl verwirrend als auch beunruhigend, insbesondere angesichts des historischen Vorgangs des Wahine-Untergangs, bei dem die Schleppkapazität ein entscheidender Faktor war. Nach dieser Tragödie wurden drei schwere Schlepper erworben, wurden jedoch später unter der Regierung von John Key verkauft und durch ein einzelnes, unzureichendes Schiff ersetzt.
Die aktuelle Regierung scheint bereit zu sein, mit der öffentlichen Sicherheit zu spielen, indem sie wesentliche Rettungsressourcen streicht, um Kosten zu sparen. Dieser Ansatz legt den kurzfristigen Sparvorteil über das Potenzial, hunderte oder sogar tausende Leben bei einem maritimen Notfall zu retten. Da die Interislander-Flotte bereits Probleme hat, stellt die Abwesenheit eines einzigen funktionsfähigen Schleppers eine erhebliche Gefahr dar. Es fühlt sich an, als würde die Regierung auf ein Unglück wetten, wobei Leben als Währung dienen und sie sich gleichzeitig von zukünftiger Verantwortung isoliert. Für viele wirkt diese Situation wie ein bevorstehender Krisenherd, was Bedenken hinsichtlich der Sicherheit des Durchfahrts im Meerbusen auslöst und zeigt, was wie ein unakzeptabler Kompromiss zwischen finanzieller Beschränktheit und menschlichen Leben erscheint.
It’s concerning that we’re not investing in a heavy-duty tug, especially when the potential disaster it could prevent would be catastrophic. Cutting costs on essential safety measures is a risky move.
Bishop No Boats has a ring to it.
He has made several missteps this week. Here are two examples, though there were likely more.
First, he reallocated funds from Kainga Ora to replace money he had previously taken from a pedestrian bridge project for a car bridge.
Second, he introduced a subsidy for high-emission petrol vehicles because importers were facing penalties due to our high proportion of gas guzzlers. For instance, you can now receive $4,000 from the government for purchasing a Ranger.
Das ist wirklich besorgniserregend, besonders der Hinweis auf die Wahine-Katastrophe, wo Schlepper entscheidend waren. Als jemand, der regelmäßig mit der Fähre zwischen den Inseln pendelt, macht mich diese Entscheidung einfach sprachlos – hier werden offenbar Kosten über Menschenleben gestellt. Wann begreifen Politiker endlich, dass man Sicherheit nicht nachträglich einkaufen kann?
Ihre Sorge als regelmäßige Fährpendlerin ist absolut verständlich – der direkte Bezug zur Wahine-Katastrophe zeigt ja leider, wie real das Risiko ist. Eine konkrete Möglichkeit, den Druck zu erhöhen, wäre, Ihren lokalen Abgeordneten direkt anzuschreiben und auf diese historische Verantwortung hinzuweisen. Haben Sie selbst schon Erfahrungen mit der aktuellen Sicherheitslage auf der Strecke gemacht?
It’s a matter of weighing likelihood and consequence. They’re accepting a certain level of risk to save money. It’s similar to choosing not to insure your car—you might never need it and come out ahead, or you could hit a Rolls Royce tomorrow and face financial ruin.
Not insuring your car is risky enough, but in this case, the consequence isn’t bankruptcy—it’s people dying. It makes sense that wealthy individuals, who can recover from financial setbacks, would see this risk as acceptable. For them, bankruptcy is just part of business, not a life sentence like it can be for those in poverty.
This is a foolish approach with a car, but with a ferry, it’s deadly.
My dad used to say: A power pole costs a million dollars to replace, and they’re everywhere.
The risk here involves human lives, not just property damage. They’re essentially prioritizing cost savings over public safety.
That’s what they said about the Titanic. He seems to have forgotten our history as well.
I agree it’s a disaster waiting to happen. We have old, failing ferries with no dedicated means of rescue if they break down.
It’s concerning that the decision not to fund a heavy-duty tug is based on the idea that a disaster might never occur. I was on the ferry that lost power and was drifting toward Red Rocks, and that situation could easily have turned into another Wahine disaster.
This is the result of entrusting decisions to those accustomed to prioritizing balance sheets over real-world consequences.
It seems like a questionable policy to rely on acquiring a heavy-duty tug only after a disaster occurs.
I think he’s a buffoon.
You may be overreacting.
This decision is likely to age poorly.
It’s concerning to consider this decision, especially given the current state of our ferry fleet. We’ve seen frequent breakdowns in recent years, and replacements are still a long way off. Dismissing necessary precautions as something that “might never happen” seems short-sighted and fails to address the real risks we face.
I don’t think that’s the case at all. Our ferries are already struggling to remain operational, and we’re stuck with them for years beyond their intended service life. Now, without a heavy-duty tug, we have no way to safely bring them into harbor if they break down in the strait. This decision puts lives at risk just to save money, which is both foolish and dangerous.
This decision further confirms that National does not prioritize the country’s long-term interests.
This government has consistently shown it’s willing to sacrifice human lives for what they call “the economy”—though it’s unclear what they believe that entails, given they prioritize tax cuts for landlords over job growth. Their stance has been clear, so this decision is hardly surprising.
Has anyone asked if he could face jail time if a disaster occurs and we lack the necessary vessel for rescue operations?
As a nation with the largest maritime patrol and search-and-rescue responsibility, an aging coastal fleet, and proximity to some of the most challenging areas of the Southern Ocean, we are surrounded by foreign fishing vessels of varying reliability. Yet the decision suggests it will be fine, as if there are no consequences at sea. This government appears focused on something other than safety. This marks a shift from reckless negligence to what feels like wanton, criminal negligence. We were essentially told that human life has been overvalued.
I recall when Shane Jones covered the cost of a heavy-duty tug using his ministerial credit card.
If a minister is willing to gamble like this, they should have some personal stake in the outcome—such as a lengthy prison sentence if people die as a result of this decision. Workplaces are held liable for damages caused by neglect; why shouldn’t government ministers be held to the same standard? The only reason they aren’t is because they’re the ones making the laws.
If he had to live on the ship, he would probably want a tug.
Perhaps Shane Jones could offer him some advice.
Given that climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of natural disasters, failing to prepare for them is irresponsible.
How many times was the Kupe used to prevent a major incident during its service? That seems to be the key question.
This is typical conservative thinking—they only recognize problems when directly affected. They fail to grasp that we live in a society and must work together for the common good.
The National Party has made a policy decision that prioritizes money over people’s safety. This is consistent with their values, so it’s not surprising. If they were truly concerned about public welfare, they would align with the Labour Party.
I’m not concerned about the unlikely scenario of an interisland ferry carrying 864 people losing power in a storm and drifting toward rocks, because I’m confident there’s an equally slim chance that an ocean-going rescue tug would coincidentally be docked nearby for unrelated commercial purposes and available for rapid assistance.
When a disaster occurs, he will likely no longer be in charge of the Ministry of Transport and won’t be held accountable. If politicians faced real consequences for their poor decisions, perhaps we would see better choices being made.
You mean like when Nicola Willis cancelled the Cook Strait ferries, delaying their replacement and costing hundreds of millions of dollars?
He likely sees no reason to replace the outdated fire equipment either.
The decision to cancel the ships has actually worsened the situation, as it means we will continue using inferior vessels for longer. If the cancellation hadn’t occurred, we would have new ships arriving now, making the absence of a capable emergency tug less risky.
Bishop is simply trying to please his conservative colleagues. He disregards the truth and only follows the party line.
It’s true, but these ships will be even more expensive if we have to pay for them a third time.
I suspect that’s not the only thing he tugs.
She’ll be right, mate.
This is similar to defunding biosecurity, which led to issues with hornets. I’m relieved they weren’t in charge during COVID. It makes you wonder how much a life is truly valued.
As a former tobacco lobbyist for Philip Morris, which holds about 25% of the global tobacco market, Chris Bishop was effectively a paid advocate for an industry linked to roughly 2 million preventable deaths each year.
Given that background, I have no trust in his judgment. It’s concerning that someone with such a clear moral conflict of interest holds a ministerial position.
I wouldn’t trust him at all. He’s only a minister because he meets the qualifications for Luxon’s cabinet. He has no scruples, his greed knows no bounds, and he lacks any charisma.
We must consistently highlight their incompetence during elections and demand better from whatever new government takes office.
Given the substantial effects of climate change we’re already experiencing, this decision is short-sighted, as conditions could worsen significantly.
He could have at least waited until the ferries that have been regularly breaking down or running aground were replaced. Even then, it would be a poor decision, but right now it’s premature.
We’ll need it regardless, so it will just become the next government’s expense a year from now.
It seems the point about boats wasn’t clearly emphasized in the discussion.
Bishop can pay for whatever size tug he wants, as long as it’s on his own dime and not charged to Parliament like Shane Jones did.
Given recent news about National staffers mistreating sex workers, it took me a moment to read the title correctly.
All talk, no action.
This decision reflects National’s ongoing incompetence and lack of foresight.
Incompetence implies a lack of understanding, but this is a deliberate choice.
They’re shortchanging future governments to save money now, even as they spend on tax cuts and benefits for landlords and tobacco companies. It seems they know they’re likely to lose the next election, so they’re sabotaging the incoming government.
I expect they’re already preparing to accuse Labour of “reckless overspending” when Labour takes office and has to spend billions cleaning up the mess National left behind. The media will likely follow the National party’s lead.
I believe they didn’t anticipate how little revenue they’d have after their tax cuts. They failed to account for the additional revenue loss from stifling economic growth, since most of our tax comes from PAYE and GST, which decline significantly during downturns. The budget was already stretched thin to meet Luxon’s campaign promises, and they refuse to borrow more—even when Labour offered them a free pass for the Lake Alice victims compensation. They’re clearly cutting every possible cost, as shown by Bishop cancelling the remainder of this contract. They’re trying to recover every cent they can find.
It’s puzzling that they allocated over $2.5 billion to defense today, yet decided against funding a heavy-duty tug for a potential disaster.
There should be criminal accountability if things go wrong.
It’s concerning that this decision seems to disregard the safety of ferry passengers.