The decision to attempt to re-enter the Pike River mine drift has been widely praised.
The families deserve justice, the families deserve closure, and the families want their men back are among the reasons for the praise.
I can’t argue with the need for justice.
Twenty nine men lost their lives at work and that’s unjust but I doubt that any evidence that could result in justice for them could be found in the drift.
The families deserve closure.
There is no closure with grief, you just learn to live with it. Had Labour and NZ First not played politics by disagreeing with the previous government’s decision that the risks of re-entry were too great, the families would have been learning to live with it for years instead of stuck in limbo, pinning their hopes on re-entry.
They have been strung along by politicians and some media. If there’s no evidence and little if anything to be found of anyone whose life was lost, they will be further still from learning to live with their grief and there will be more agitation to go beyond the drift.
The families want their men back.
Some do, but not all. Marion Curtin, the mother of one victims says the attempt to re-enter is disgraceful.
Her son, Richard Holling, never came home after the November 2010 tragedy, but she wanted it to stay that way.
Some people might assume that all 29 affected families considered yesterday’s news as a “victory,” she said, but she was one of the silent many who disagreed.
Almost all reports since the disaster make it appear as if all the families support the re-entry. The ‘silent many’ are rarely mentioned.
She said the plan was an “appalling” waste of $36 million.
“I’m just so disappointed. I couldn’t believe that cabinet would sign this off,” she said.
Ms Curtin was deeply grateful for the money already spent at the site, but at the same time wondered how others can’t see “all the other important things in the country that the money could be spent on”.
Especially given the lack of certainty, she said, with nobody able to tell her exactly what the mine recovery experts would be looking for.
“I see it as sacrilege, really. To go in fossicking around for remains… to go in just to see what they find – I think it’s just disgraceful,” she said.
Ms Curtin loathed the fact it had become so political. She said the months leading up to last year’s election were especially challenging. “Some people liked that… the politicians climbing on board. I certainly didn’t. That was my son’s death they were playing with.” she said. . .
It’s also playing with the lives of the people who will re-enter the mine.
Stacey Kirk writes of the high risks for re-entry:
But the biggest concern might be that the word “safety” appears to be becoming more subjective by the day.
“Safety is paramount” Little repeated ad nauseum.
It’s hard to understand that if that were the case, why more people would be sent down there.
A mine filled with explosive gases, no matter how much are pumped out, surrounded by rock of variable stability and the simple fact it’s a coal mine – which in the best of situations are hazardous sites – there is no way it’s objectively safe.
The previous Government decided the danger threshold was more than it could stomach, on the back of technical advice. This Government has decided it’s comfortable with whatever risk is still there, on the basis of a different set of technical advice.
Without a very specific type of engineering degree, the differences between the two sets of advice are unlikely to be translatable to the wider public. Still, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the venture is far from risk-free. It’s debatable, but perhaps at least partially irrelevant, whether $30m dedicated to 29 families is a worthwhile cost.
But it’s without question that the risk of one more life, definitely isn’t.
No employer should ask anyone to undertake the work and no politician should ask it of anyone either.
Health and Safety laws were changed as a result of the Pike River disaster and any Person in Charge of a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) is now liable if a life is lost or someone injured.
Nothing can be done to make no risk at all for anyone going into the drift and it makes it worse that one of the motivations for putting lives at risk is to bring back bodies, or what remains of them.
The living should never be asked to put their lives at risk to rescue the dead.