Labour leader David Cunliffe is vowing to make the owners of the grounded Rena ship pay the full cost of the clean-up and remove the wreck remains from Astrolabe Reef.
Speaking during a visit to Tauranga today, Labour leader David Cunliffe says a Labour government will make sure the ship's owners Daina Shipping 'pay the full amount to clean up Astrolabe Reef.”
Labour leader David Cunliffe announces Labour's intentions with the Rena.
will make sure the ship's owners Daina Shipping 'pay the full amount to clean up Astrolabe Reef.”
'The Rena's owners, the Daina Shipping Company, is expected to seek permission to leave the wreck where it lies,” says David.
'This is an insult to local iwi, Bay of Plenty leaders and Tauranga Mayor Stuart Crosby, who all want this gone.”
The containership Rena struck the Astrolabe Reef, about 25km off the coast of Tauranga, on October 5, 2011.
The ship leaked more than 350 tonnes of heavy fuel oil into the environment and broke up, spilling containers and cargo into the ocean, washing up on beaches across the Bay of Plenty.
Parts of the wreck have been removed with the bow section cut to one metre below the high tide, while the sunken aft section remains underwater on the reef.
If elected, the opposition leader says Labour will make the Rena owners pay through any means possible and reclaim 'every penny” of the clean-up.
'We will remove the wreck of the Rena from the Astrolabe Reef. In our view it's an insult to the people of Tauranga, to local iwi and to our environment to leave that potentially toxic wreck on the reef.
'For the Government to accept payment in exchange to leave it on the reef is the wrong thing to do.”
In 2012, the Government announced a settlement with Daina Shipping, with the owners agreeing to pay $27.6 million compensation to the Crown and a further $10.4 million if the company applied for and was successfully granted resource consent to leave part of the wreck on the reef.
This could leave a shortfall of about $20m on the cleanup costs, which are about $47m.
The opposition leader also questions whether it was the Government, or Rena owners, that offered the monetary opportunity of 'some $10 million dollars” in exchange for the wreck to remain.
The owners are expected to lodge a resource consent application with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to leave remains of the ship on the reef between the end of March and May, 2014.
Labour joins a growing list of MPs and city officials speaking out in support to fully remove the wreck – including NZ First leader Winston Peters, Motiti Island iwi and Tauranga City Mayor Stuart Crosby.
On whether the Government is doing enough to protect taxpayers from current clean-up bills, David was quick to offer some support to the Bay public saying the Government needs to pick up its act.
'What we are hearing from the people of the Bay is they don't want it there and that they want their reef cleaned up. They don't want the potential for future toxic waste on their beaches or Motiti Island.”
He adds if Labour is elected, legal advice on any contractual obligations surrounding settlements already signed between the Government and Rena owners will need to be investigated.



41 comments
really?
Posted on 03-03-2014 13:44 | By sojourner
And I should believe that why? Labour does not have a history of keeping promises that matter to NZers. Unfortunately many people have a very short memory and will vote based on whichever party has been in power has upset them. Can someone remind me of Labour's election promises NOT to sell state-owned land to foreigners the last elections? Hm? And what happened as soon as they could? Hm?
Overit
Posted on 03-03-2014 14:17 | By overit
Must be election year!
Mr
Posted on 03-03-2014 14:27 | By JNMCMatua
Well it must be an election year!! Great to see the chequebooks are clearly all being dusted off and the moths allowed to fly away.
rena removal
Posted on 03-03-2014 14:35 | By rosscoo
Yes would be good to be removed but at what costs and to who? It could cost more fighting the owners for more money than they willing to give. In long term is it not better to sink and put up monument as this is what owner originally offered to pay?
David Cunliffe
Posted on 03-03-2014 14:38 | By Fonzie
Says this is an insult to iwi, BoP leaders and Stuart Crosby The rest of us don't count apparently
I wonder if they think everybody is dumb
Posted on 03-03-2014 14:54 | By rotovend
nice promise but who will pay because existing Maritime law appears to be half the issue. Also is it better to leave it or remove it Labour has given me no facts on the actual question should it stay or should it go all they have done is make a promise and give so called examples of who is insulted?? by it being there weird just an emotional election bribe with zero facts.
What next
Posted on 03-03-2014 15:04 | By What now
What a waste of tax payer money. Really this party will go to any lengths to get the votes but how are they going to pay for all their promises. Will the middle income earner be hit once again?
.
Posted on 03-03-2014 15:40 | By dgk
Finally a politician with the balls to do what's right.
Mountie
Posted on 03-03-2014 16:14 | By Hiwinui
I have always said the Rena was a serious incident, not a "disaster". Given the sea conditions it is clear some will not be satisfied until lives are lost and it does become a disaster. There are shipwrecks all around the world. Cleaning them up completely often causes more damage than leaving them be. Let's get as much as can be removd reasonably safely and let the fish take over the rest!
14GK
Posted on 03-03-2014 16:17 | By 1 4 GK
This guy is a cracker......he really has no idea on the way the law has limited the current Government's response nor that under the Resource Management Act, the Rena owners can apply to leave the remains there (and pay further compensation. Labour has taken little to no interest in Tauranga since 2011 (with their other parachute candidate). Next they'll be telling us they'll pay off TCC's Route K debt! At least National has honoured it's promise to do the Hairini underpass which starts soon it seems.
So much spin we're dizzy ...
Posted on 03-03-2014 16:25 | By Murray.Guy
'For the Government to accept payment in exchange to leave it on the reef is the wrong thing to do.” I have NOT seen any such agreement. We have a Resource Consent process that hopefully will secure a positive outcome based on facts rather than 'vote catching & selected people pleasing' rhetoric! Here it is again. Read it slowly .... In 2012, the Government announced a settlement with Daina Shipping, with the owners agreeing to pay $27.6 million compensation to the Crown and a further $10.4 million if the company applied for and was successfully granted resource consent to leave part of the wreck on the reef. ... IF the company applied for and was successful! not that confusing, is it?
A Real attempt at Vote catching
Posted on 03-03-2014 16:31 | By carpedeum
Come on David Cunliffe do you think that the people of the BOP are wet behind the ears?? Talk about election lolly bribed - go away to where you came from
insult to who? David
Posted on 03-03-2014 16:43 | By Active
words are cheap. And are we all insulted ? or just a selected few.We live here as well. Or do we?
Rena
Posted on 03-03-2014 16:49 | By peter pan
Total waste of money,leave it there.
Cynical
Posted on 03-03-2014 17:16 | By Papamoaner
What a cynical bunch of vote trawlers. Wellingtonians paid to have a ship sunk as a diving attraction, apparently very successful too. These clowns got one for free and want to get rid of it. Dumb!
more lies
Posted on 03-03-2014 17:16 | By stella-abbey
what a load of rubbish voters you would hope are not sucked in by all the rubbish being put across by the greens and labour they had there chance 9 years of hell with Helen and Winston who
Blood money
Posted on 03-03-2014 19:19 | By Johnney
How can anyone trust the clown called Cunliffe. As much as I hate the thought of leaving it there the risk to life to remove it is too high. Maybe give Cunliffe some scuba gear and underwater gas axe and see what he thinks then.
David Cunliffe is not promising money
Posted on 03-03-2014 21:05 | By Peter Dey
All those people claiming that David Cunliffe is promising an election bribe are not reading what he said. He is simply pointing out that the National Government and local National MP's appear to have exerted no pressure to get the wreck fully removed. This is what local people and local iwi want. David Cunliffe is saying that a Labour Government would do everything in its power to get the owners to remove the wreck. He is not promising Government funds to remove the wreck.
Sojourner and Stella-abbey should check facts
Posted on 03-03-2014 21:13 | By Peter Dey
Sojourner and Stella-Abbey need to recognise that the previous Labour Government saved a total of $18 billion during its term. The present National Government has borrowed over $50 billion. David Cunliffe has far greater economic credibility than the present Government. He is not in the business of making economic promises that will not be carried out.
Lame
Posted on 04-03-2014 07:58 | By nz0011
All politics of this aside, my understanding is the "Expert Diving Team/ Consultants" bought in on this job are saying that the reef underwater conditions are too dangerous to allow even world class and highly trained recovery divers safe working conditions and it would put mens lives at risk to attempt a full site cleanup. So Labour is saying that it can be done safely - where is their proof to back this up. Interested to see if OSH has any opinion on this? Why don't they interveiw our Navy Diving team to see what they say about it. Seems to me that sending divers down on this wreck is a potential tragedy waiting to happen even if you could find someone willing to do it.
Wrecks
Posted on 04-03-2014 08:55 | By dumbkof2
What about the greenpeace wreck that they sank up north. Are they going to pull that up and remove it as well. Sorry that is part of the protest movement so cant touch it
Peter Dey, question
Posted on 04-03-2014 09:38 | By Murray.Guy
You write, 'This is what local people and local iwi want'. I'm as local as anyone and I'm okay with respecting the outcome of any legal process. I am not aware of any canvassing of public opinion, including local Maori? In the world I walk many are ambivalent, many see huge potential for it to remain appropriately managed, and a few want it removed totally (regardless of the cost, the risk to persons, the potential economic benefits to our region). Peter Dey, the basis for your statement is ....?
Murray Guy answer
Posted on 04-03-2014 10:53 | By Peter Dey
Murray Guy is absolutely correct that there has been no public survey over the removal of the Rena. Tony Ryall and Simon Bridges have shown no interest in finding out what local people want. However Local iwi spokesman, Buddy Mikaere, has made it clear that iwi want the Rena removed. Our Mayor, Stuart Crosby, who represents the community, has also made it clear that he wants the Rena removed. A great deal of local newspaper comment has been in favour of removing the Rena. Simon Bridges and Tony Ryall do not want to know. David Cunliffe does.
Partly agree with Murray Guy
Posted on 04-03-2014 10:56 | By Councillorwatch
Evidence for statements made is important. It would be good to know what are facts and what is opinion. But on 28 February Murray Guy wrote "the Mayor is kicking and screaming all the way to a 'commissioner being appointed'! Murray, the basis for your statement is? Do you have some sort of connection to higher powers?
MP's should represent the people
Posted on 04-03-2014 11:04 | By Peter Dey
It is long overdue that Tony Ryall and Simon Bridges should have surveyed the local community over the removal of the Rena. When the issue goes to the environment court, if a clear majority of local people want the Rena removed then the MP's should be making sure that the case presented by the Rena owners is fully challenged. Simon Bridges and Tony Ryall do not seem to care. David Cunliffe does care what the local community wants.
14GK
Posted on 04-03-2014 13:41 | By 1 4 GK
Peter Dey has conveniently ignored that MP Bridges is on public record of his wish the wreck be removed entirely. Rena is apprently going to ask that some of the wreck be allowed to remain and the issue will be solidly debated before a decision is made. No doubt, if the decision is to allow the remains to stay on the reef there'll be appeals from Iwi, TCC and others - while the wreck continues to sit there....
@Peter Dey
Posted on 04-03-2014 14:42 | By Sambo Returns
you are talking about your peerless leader, who does not know one donation from another, how could you trust someone like that, he has a serious case of "foot in mouth" disease and this is just a vote scam!!!
Referenda
Posted on 04-03-2014 14:45 | By Jitter
Would Peter Dey be happy if the Regional Council held a referenda over the remains of the Rena wreck and the result was "Leave it where it is". Both sides of the argument are saying that the majority of BOP people A: Want it removed or B: Left where it is. Neither side really knows what the majority of BOP people want so their individual claims are just bull. Cunliffe is politicking and if Labour ever get into power this question will be immediately be put in the too hard basket. I say leave it where it is as a warning to other careless and errant marine navigators. There are the remains of wrecks in waters all over the world. Why is NZ and the iwi on Motiti island so different ?
rena
Posted on 04-03-2014 15:19 | By dumbkof2
So Mr cunliffe is jumping up and down ranting and raving and demanding that tht wreck should be removed AIf he can get enough votes to get to be prime ministerhe will suddenly discover that it will be impossible to remove completely.Just like the rest of them when they get into power they go back on their words. Leave the darn thing there. It will give the taniwha somewhere to go for a holiday
Sambo returns is over-reacting
Posted on 04-03-2014 23:18 | By Peter Dey
Sambo returns is making a mountain out of a molehill over David Cunliffe's leadership contest donations. David Cunliffe did not steal any money or break any law. It is a non-issue.
Tony Ryall is AWOL here
Posted on 04-03-2014 23:31 | By Peter Dey
14GK may be right that Simon Bridges has publicly said he wants the Rena removed, but he has not said that he will be doing everything possible to challenge the owners over leaving the Rena where it is. David Cunliffe has said he will be doing his best to challenge the owners. The Rena is in Tony Ryall's electorate. He has said nothing. We can assume that the National Government is happy to ignore local opinion and take the money.
jitter's bias is unjustified
Posted on 05-03-2014 20:26 | By Peter Dey
Jitter describes David Cunliffe as politicking meaning that David Cunliffe is making his comments purely to seek votes. Of course David Cunliffe wants support for his views. But his views support local iwi and the mayor. Simon Bridges and Tony Ryall do not support local iwi and the mayor. Politicking is the wrong word here.
a regional council referendum is not appropriate
Posted on 05-03-2014 20:31 | By Peter Dey
Jitter writes about a Regional Council referendum, but the Regional Council can only base its decision on the evidence put before it. It is in the hands of our local MP's and the Government to make sure that the evidence of the Rena owners is fully challenged. Our local MP's and the Government do not seem to care. David Cunliffe says that they should.
Peter's rantings
Posted on 06-03-2014 17:33 | By YOGI BEAR
There has been nothing of merit to read here from that quarter as yet. Just the repeat ramblings of an over zealous wobbler due to look for a new perch somewhere else. Looking at the pedigree that should have been Australia.
Labouring VOWS ...
Posted on 06-03-2014 17:35 | By YOGI BEAR
Looks to me that this is just 'habouring on" about something that a nonsense. There is no merit in this at all, the cost of the Rena has been huge for all to date with it being rated as the third most expensive maritime ship wreck in the world. When considering 'real' disasters like the Exon Valdez that is saying something.
On a longer term outlook
Posted on 08-03-2014 16:46 | By crazyhorse
This could develop into a very diverse and abundant ecosystem. The mess and detriment to the already damaged environment that would be caused by a long term salvage would be huge and the negatives of this outweigh any positives. On a business front, the ailing local dive centres and charter boats would gain huge benefits, not only for local divers, but national and international enthusiasts that will travel to dive her. With the coverage being broadcast around the world, many divers would already have added her to their must do list. I see Dey is against a referendum, got a real thing about the rest of Tauranga having a say, "why do you think that is????", must be backing his mate Sir Geoffery Palmer up, he wants referendums done away with completely in NZ, "CAN'T HAVE KIWI HAVING A SAY IN WHAT GO'S ON" well not all kiwi anyway.
Its here to stay
Posted on 28-03-2014 09:16 | By Sunny700
Its a completly pointless arguement, a confidential agreement has already been signed between the government and Daina shipping to leave the reminder of the stern section on the reef for an as yet, undisclosed fee. At the end of the day, money talks. Given the depth of water and the complexity of the salvage, it will take an additional 50-60 million to remove the rest of the stern section so its cheaper for the P&I to write the NZ government a cheque and the salvors move onto their next gig. There is nothing anyone can do at this point to change this unfortunatly
Containers Missing from Manifest ... ?
Posted on 01-04-2014 15:21 | By Mary Faith
I have sent the following letter to Simon Bridges and "Beca" - the company dealing with the Rena recovery. As yet I have not received replies from either!! Why not? ____________ "In regard to the "harmful contaminants" still aboard the 'Rena' - do you know what these are? There is a rumour going around that there are four containers of nuclear waste on board. The captain admitted at his court case that the Rena carried containers that were not listed on the manifest (because of their lethal contents). The rumour would appear to hold substance. Do you know if nuclear waste is sitting in our waters? If you don't - can you please look into the matter and advise the public accordingly? Perhaps it is because of these "harmful contaminants" that the wreck is considered too dangerous to move?" Why no reply ??????????????
Moving
Posted on 02-04-2014 09:25 | By Raewyn
It is common knowledge that the Rena moved in the last storm. It will never be safe to leave it there ! They say to move it, it will damage the reef more than it has already, but to leave it there wont? especially now that it is lighter and moving on the reef!Then there is this dangerous substance that is still in the hull! Why are so many people blind to these facts?
Containers Missing from Manifest ... ?
Posted on 02-04-2014 12:06 | By Sunny700
Sorry but here is not a scrap of truth in this rediculous rumour. No container shipping line in the world are permitted to carry neculear material, waste or otherwise. 100% of the cargo onboard the Rena when it hit the reef was loaded in New Zealand - and as a non-nuclear country, where would this waste 'nuclear material' have come from in NZ?
Moving?
Posted on 02-04-2014 12:25 | By Sunny700
Of course the remainder of the stern section has moved - its now lighter. Chances are, when the salvors remove the rest of the accomodation block it may move again in the next storm. All its going to do is slide a little further off the reef and into deeper water. Any reef damage will be minimal compared to what would happen if they attempted to remove it completely. The 'contaminants' remaining in the few containers left in the stern section are poly balls and I believe these WILL be removed as part of the planned concent to leave the remainder of the stern on the reef.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.