NZFF

Whilst I feel a degree of sympathy for the families of those lost in this mining tragedy I am horrified at the $36 million dollar price tag. This makes it just plain wrong in my book.
With so many people needing $$$ for life saving drugs, as well as the increasing homelessness issue, this must seem like a kick in the guts.
Nothing will bring their loved ones back and the reason for the catastrophe is already known ....so why? why risk others lives in this foolhardy and expensive endeavour???

My attitude to the re-entry is quite the opposite. I am proud to live in a country where the families of those killed at work can get the chance to bury their loved ones. Sure it's expensive, but it was a disaster, after all, and needs to be decided on a lot of different factors, rather than a financial cost/benefit analysis.
It would be better to see the mining industry fund it entirely, as part of the overall cost of their industry.

In an ideal world I would agree with you Rob. However their loved ones are already buried. They have had memorial services and even a monument erected. We are reminded of it every year. Time to move on and not let others risk their lives. Interesting how you would think that this has a higher preference over say life saving drugs for those with advanced Cancer or others in equal need. The emotive aspect needs to be tempered and a cost/benefit ratio is actually what is needed. The cost versus what other benefit that could be achieved with the dollars. This seems to be missing.

Cowpatz, with you 100%. Along with the Flag issue another $26 million wasted. Its about time the Politicians
got the head out of their A--- and helped those where it really counts.

I'm pretty sure the cost of the re-entry is not coming out of the health budget. So it doesn't come down to 'hey, we have $36 million, what can we spend it on?' To me, mentioning the life-saving drugs is more emotive than the re-entry for the sake of the families, which if I had to come up with an adjective, would me more like 'socially responsible'.
Obviously the families don't see their loved-ones as 'already buried', otherwise they would not have pushed for re-entry.
I know that the cost needs to be considered, but it shouldn't be a major factor. The safely issues ARE a major concern, which is why I would like to see the mining industry foot the bill -- they are happy to send their employees down into what was obviously a dangerous situation while they are making a profit. In this particular case, part of the responsibility here should be taking care of the people when things inevitably go wrong. This should be part of the cost of making money in NZ.

The funding for this should be paid for by the management team that were in charge of running the mine at the time.
They were the ones that let it all happen.

So: a tax on mining activity in NZ.
In the first instance, to fund the Pike River cost.
Thereafter, to directly fund proper government oversight of mining in NZ.
Lobby your MP - why should the money come from any other quarter?

Talking semantics there Rob as to budgets. If it's for Pike river then it's not going to be for health or any other worthwhile service.
It was a Labour election bribe. I don't think anyone would have envisaged $36 million on a "recovery mission'. Absurd.

Charl wrote:So: a tax on mining activity in NZ.
In the first instance, to fund the Pike River cost.
Thereafter, to directly fund proper government oversight of mining in NZ.
Lobby your MP - why should the money come from any other quarter?

Exactly. Dealing with what happens when things go horribly wrong is the responsibility of the undustry. They should all contribute to a fund to clean up the occasional mess especially when it happens to the workers.