Worksafe Charges over White Island Eruption.

Forums › Off topic › Worksafe Charges over White Island Eruption.

1 | 2

mdooher

Hmm, what to write...
1424 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2614542 2-Dec-2020 09:21

Handsomedan:

I'm quite surprised that the owners are being charged as well...they issued permits. Assumedly those permits would simply grant permission to use the island for their activities within the law.

Not sure what culpability they have...

The act is a massive catchall "PCBU" means anybody involved. Basically if there is an accident everybody is guilty end of story.

Matthew

1101

3122 posts

Uber Geek

#2614570 2-Dec-2020 09:52

I think we are all missing the point

The law is there to prosecute those who still hold onto the 'she'll be right' 1950's mentality , and to force a change in thinking & attitude to protect lives .

Scientists stated that White island was UNSAFE at the time , and some sort of eruption was likely . That was known by the experts .
One scientist even said he would not have gone there , as the risk of an eruption was far too high at that time. They knew what was coming .

Those doing the tours had a 'she'll be right' attitude
Either they didnt bother to regularly check with experts as to current risks , or they ignored expert advice (that would be even worse).
The risk was very high , they did tours anyway. That alone caused many deaths . Dollars before lives .
Of course they should be prosecuted .

There is allways some risk in adventure tourism .
Some risk is not the same as very high risk & stupidity to proceed anyway .

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2614617 2-Dec-2020 10:57

Handsomedan:

I'm quite surprised that the owners are being charged as well...they issued permits. Assumedly those permits would simply grant permission to use the island for their activities within the law.

Not sure what culpability they have...

Presumably they had some responsibility to provide adequate shelter, especially if they are allowing the island to be used when there is an elevated risk. If another container/shelter was available at the crater end of the walk, probably less people would have been killed/injured instead of having to run back to the wharf?

Can you contract out of your H&S responsibility? e.g. "Use of the island is permitted so long as it is safe"? or "Safety is the sole responsibility of the tour operator"?

Handsomedan

7281 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2614624 2-Dec-2020 11:05

frankv:

Handsomedan:

I'm quite surprised that the owners are being charged as well...they issued permits. Assumedly those permits would simply grant permission to use the island for their activities within the law.

Not sure what culpability they have...

Presumably they had some responsibility to provide adequate shelter, especially if they are allowing the island to be used when there is an elevated risk. If another container/shelter was available at the crater end of the walk, probably less people would have been killed/injured instead of having to run back to the wharf?

Can you contract out of your H&S responsibility? e.g. "Use of the island is permitted so long as it is safe"? or "Safety is the sole responsibility of the tour operator"?

I guess I didn't really think of it that way...I was thinking in terms of the fact that the owners of the Island are simply that - owners of a bit of land. The operators are the ones that bear responsibility as the owners are not actually doing anything per se.

Looking at it as you have stated, you're probably right - they could/should have provided safe shelters at the crater end, but I suppose nobody had ever been caught up in an eruption like this before (that I know of) and so there was probably never any thought that it would be required...also the operators (in my opinion) would presumably bear the most responsibility based on the fact that they take people out there and are supposed to assess the risk prior to operating their tours etc...from what I can tell, none of the family that own the island even live in the area, so would have little to no visibility of the conditions.

Edit: Spelling

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

sittingduckz

680 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2614628 2-Dec-2020 11:14

Handsomedan:

I guess I didn't really think of it that way...I was thinking in terms of the fact that the owners of the Island are simply that - owners of a bit of land. The operators are the ones that bear responsibility as the owners are not actually doing anything per se.

Looking at it as you have stated, you're probably right - they could/should have provided safe shelters at the crater end, but I suppose nobody had ever been caught up in an eruption like this before (that I know of) and so there was probably never any thought that it would be required...also the operators (in my opinion) would presumably bear the most responsibility based on the fact that they take people out there and are supposed to assess the risk prior to operating their tours etc...from what I can tell, none of the family that own the island even live in the area, so would have little to no visibility of the conditions.

Edit: Spelling

Imagine the red tape involved in building a shelter out there.

I'm not a complete idiot, I still have some parts missing.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2614642 2-Dec-2020 11:33

sittingduckz:

Imagine the red tape involved in building a shelter out there.

Actually, it's probably very little. It's privately owned, and not included in any District Council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whakaari_/_White_Island

SaltyNZ

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#2614747 2-Dec-2020 13:30

frankv:

sittingduckz:

Imagine the red tape involved in building a shelter out there.

Actually, it's probably very little. It's privately owned, and not included in any District Council. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whakaari_/_White_Island

Id be more worried about the liability attracted. You can easily see it going down as "You built a shelter but it got buried in lava / still let in superhot steam / otherwise failed to prevent us being cooked, and so it's your fault". Could almost be worse than simply saying "It's a live volcano, approach at own risk."

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2614855 2-Dec-2020 16:28

SaltyNZ:

Jase2985:

"A PCBU ( Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking) must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers, and that other people are not put at risk by its work. This is called the ‘primary duty of care’."

Sure, but OP's main point still stands. The tourists were visiting a live volcano. They knew it was live, that's part of the attraction. Looking down into the caldera of Mt. Eden is not very interesting. But if the outcome of some/all of these charges is a successful prosecution then yes, that's probably the end of all activities in the National Park area because that's an active volcanic area too. Maybe Rotorua closes - it's all active. Any of them could explode at any time with little practical warning.

There is a definite possibility of unfortunate unintended consequences here.

unfortunate unintended consequences here, yes there likely will be.

But look at the hierarchy of control

Can you eliminate the hazard? no its a tourist attraction/what ever it is. we still want people visiting these/conducting these activities

can you minimize the danger from the hazard? yep most certainly can, and this is likely where the issues lie in this case. could the risk of harm have been minimized? yep better guidance from organizations providing data on the state of the volcano, emergency shelters (i know you mentioned lava in your last post) but lets get real here, you cant protect against everything, and this is where minimizing comes in, protect against the most likely senario. Somewhere safe near the dock where they should shelter.

finally its controls, like PPE, etc could they have each had a portable re-breather hood they could quickly put on to help with the fumes etc? which might have helped them get away to a fresh air environment?

what about a rescue plan in case something went wrong? how were people going to be evacuated? the helicopter was screwed pretty quick. now they are stuck there.

I think company's will need to spend more time coming up with robust safety plans and procedures to help keep the public safe in the future.

Kookoo

787 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#2614876 2-Dec-2020 16:47

SaltyNZ:

Jase2985:

"A PCBU ( Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking) must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers, and that other people are not put at risk by its work. This is called the ‘primary duty of care’."

Sure, but OP's main point still stands. The tourists were visiting a live volcano. They knew it was live, that's part of the attraction. Looking down into the caldera of Mt. Eden is not very interesting. But if the outcome of some/all of these charges is a successful prosecution then yes, that's probably the end of all activities in the National Park area because that's an active volcanic area too. Maybe Rotorua closes - it's all active. Any of them could explode at any time with little practical warning.

There is a definite possibility of unfortunate unintended consequences here.

There's definitely an "Airplane!" quote for everything.

Here's one you might (or might not) enjoy: Airplane! Counterpoint

Hello, Ground!

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2614891 2-Dec-2020 17:33

SaltyNZ:
Sure, but OP's main point still stands. The tourists were visiting a live volcano. They knew it was live, that's part of the attraction. Looking down into the caldera of Mt. Eden is not very interesting. But if the outcome of some/all of these charges is a successful prosecution then yes, that's probably the end of all activities in the National Park area because that's an active volcanic area too. Maybe Rotorua closes - it's all active. Any of them could explode at any time with little practical warning.

There's a huge difference between White Island, a very active and dangerous volcano that's killed people in the past, and Ruapehu, a barely-active volcano that's also killed people but apart from Tangiwai, which was indirect fatalities, it's only from skiing or climbing accidents. The reason why we have the alert levels is to provide an indication about risk. If it's "keep off at all times" then we don't need an alert system.

1 | 2