Sorting by

Skip to main content

Australian Government’s Solution Unnecessarily Expensive

By January 9, 2012No Comments

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Attorney General Nicola Roxon said during a media conference that the recovery of Geoffrey Tuxworth, Simon Peterffy and Glen Pendlebury from the Japanese whaling security ship Shonan Maru #2 would cost the Australian tax-payers hundreds of thousands of dollars and would remove the Ocean Protector from important fishery patrol duties off Heard Island.

They insinuated that Sea Shepherd would be responsible for these costs because of this incident and even suggested that Sea Shepherd foot the bill for the costs.

Yes it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars but this is not the fault of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

The government opted for this very expensive solution when there was a very inexpensive solution to the problem that Sea Shepherd could have provided, if the government had bothered to ask us for advice.

The problem is that the government never communicates with us and has never done so from the day they were elected. They talk to the Japanese and they listen to the Japanese but never to us which is why the attorney general stuck her foot in her mouth by ignoring evidence and parroting the Japanese whaling industries P.R. flak Glenn Inwood’s false accusation that the boarding took place 44 kilometres off the beach.

The solution that Sea Shepherd could offer would cost the taxpayers nothing.

All the Shonan Maru #2 has to do is transfer the three men to the Steve Irwin only twelve miles away from them.

It could be done quickly and it would cost the taxpayers absolutely nothing.

Instead the government solution is to send a large ship from Heard Island at enormous expense so they can demonize Sea Shepherd for causing them to spend taxpayers’ money.

The government solution would also keep the recovery from happening for days because of the distances between the government ship and the Shonan Maru #2.

The government rejected this solution or did not even consider it because their policy is to not recognize Sea Shepherd in any way so as to not offend Japan.

In this they saw an opportunity to make Sea Shepherd look bad in the eyes of an Australian public that is very supportive of Sea Shepherd by framing the story as one where Sea Shepherd has cost the Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

However the decision to cost the taxpayers this burden was made by the Prime Minister not by Sea Shepherd.

It will however cost the taxpayers less than her recent pay raise. Just saying.

Leave a Reply