Analysis of A Totally Avoidable Tragedy Documentary - Movie Review Example

A Totally avoidable Tragedy-Video Analysis Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Name Date of Submission A Totally avoidable Tragedy-Video Analysis Introduction Tragedies do occur many times in different parts of the world. Whereas some are unavoidable, such as those caused by an unforeseen natural disasters, the majority of disasters are avoidable, especially if proper measures are put in place. Although this is the case, complacence on the part of the stakeholders can sometimes lead into blunders that result in accidents that lead in loss of lives (Das 2006, p. 6; Phillips 2003, p. 17). A Totally Avoidable Tragedy is a classical documentary of a tragedy that occurred in the Australian ocean because of the failures of different stakeholders. This document presents analysis of the video a totally avoidable tragedy. The document will begin by identifying the stakeholders in light of what they actually did and ought to have done. Finally, the paper will identify those who behave ethically and unethically. A Totally avoidable Tragedy is a documentary that presents a sad tale of how five people died in the sea at the northern Australia. The unfortunate and avoidable tragedy began on the October 14, 2005 at midday, when the immigrant ship, christened Malu Sara departed safely from Torres Strait on its way to Badu Island, a journey that was expected to take about 4 hours (ABC 2015). The unfortunate happened as the boat disappeared several hours after the departure after the boat sunk with its occupants after the responsible parties failed to respond to the tragedy. There were, however, quite a number of stakeholders in that were involved in the unfortunate tragedy. A stakeholder is any person or organization with an interest in a certain thing or event. In other words, stakeholders are people who are affected either directly or indirectly by an event (Sachs and Rühli 2011, p. 12). For a company, stakeholders include customers, suppliers, employees, government and community (Wentges and Gossy 2008, p. 43). The event that occurred in the document had quite a number of stakeholders that were either involved or affected by the tragedy that occurred at the northern part of Australia. The first major stakeholder in the tragedy was the Department of Immigration. The Department of Immigration being the owner of the bought that caused the fetal tragedy was expected under normal circumstances to have taken all measures to ensure that the vessel bought meet the quality level to perform its functions. In this respect, the Immigration Department ought to have procured a quality vessel from qualified ship builders. However, this was not the case as the Department of Immigration made serious blunders that are largely to blame for the tragedy. According to Debbie Whitmont, the immigration Department started making mistake by putting Garry Chaston, who was a former federal officer to be in charge of the immigration department in Torres Strait. Despite not being knowledgeable about vessels, the immigration department assigned him the responsibility of purchasing boats. Although Chaston repeatedly reminded the Department of Immigration that he knew nothing about boats or government contracts, the Department ignored Chaston advice (ABC 2015). Chaston’s lack of knowledge about boats and government contracts become apparent when he advertised a tender for the purchase of boats but ended up leaving very crucial tender requirements. One of the requirements that Chaston left out in the ad was failing to mention that the boat was to be used in the open waters in Torres Straits. Such crucial omission resulted in the supply of a boat that could not operate effectively in the Torres Straits, thereby resulting in the tragedy that ended up killing five innocent people. Therefore, were it that the Department of Immigration took appropriate measures to purchase the right vessel by assigning the procurement job to an officer with the right knowledge about boats and government contracts, certainly the tragedy could have been avoided. The second major stakeholder in the tragedy was the supplier of the vessel. According to the documentary, the supply tender was awarded to Subsee Explorer because of being the lowest bidder. Generally, because the boat was going to carry human beings on dangerous waters, the supplier would be expected to ensure that the boat is built to standard. These include ensuing that the materials used are of high quality and capable of withstanding strong storms (Crouhy, Galai, and Mark 2000, p. 14). Unfortunately, the supplier failed to fulfill its obligation by building a weak vessel that could not do the job that it was meant to do. Firstly, the documentary reveals that the Subsee Explorer quoted very low price that raised questions whether the amount could enable it build quality boat. Even after getting the tender, Subsee Explorer reportedly started exerting pressure on its other suppliers, such as Greg Pope and Tess Sard a move that contributed further to the building is a weak and substandard boat that could not operate on the open waters of Torres Straits. The third major stakeholders in the case were the employees on the boat. As the employees that are in charge of the boat on a daily basis, they were expected to ensure that the boat is in good condition for use in waters. Unfortunately this was not the case as the documentary reveals that the vessel that the five victims who drowned were using was leaking even before the departure, which increased the extent of the danger that the sailors were exposed. In fact, it was because of the leaking of the boat that made the vessel to sink fast. In fact, Chaston did admit that he failed to inform Sergeants Flegg and Jerry Stephen that the vessel was leaking during the Saibai workshop. The Queensland police and AUSSAR was also key stakeholder with an interest in the happening. The police officers and AUSSAR were expected to respond swiftly to the directress calls made to them to assist in the rescue efforts (ABC 2015). Unfortunately, both failed to fulfill their obligations as they did not take the messages of distress with the seriousness it deserved. As such, lives were lost partly because the Queensland police and AUSSAR failed to respond appropriately on time. The other key stakeholders in the issue are the residents of Torres Strait, some of whose family members perished in the boat tragedy (ABC 2015). Being the people most affected by the tragedy, they are expected to pressurize the government and the people involved to be held accountable for their wrongdoing. The people of Torres Strait also ought to demand expiation as to how the tragedy occurred and why nobody has ever been convicted. Indeed, these people have been doing this by demanding for answers and calling for a quick probe into the issue to ensure that culprits are arrested and jailed for causing loss of lives. Ethical Nature of the Actions of the Parties Involved Ethics refers to a person’s ability to differentiate right from wrong (Bonhoeffer and Bethge 1995, p. 3). As such, an action is ethical if it is considered morally right; otherwise the action is considered unethical. According to the case, most of the parties in the case behaved ethically. The first person who behaved unethically was Garry Chaston, the regional manager for the Department of Immigration in Torres Strait. This is because, despite knowing that he lacked the knowledge of boats and government procurement, he proceeded to advertise a tender that had many mistakes that resulted in the purchase of a low quality boat. If he were ethical, he would have insisted on the job of buying a boat being given to someone with knowledge and experience (Badiou 2002, p. 31). Chaston also behaved unethically by cheating that the Department of Immigration had obtained compliance certificate for the purchased boat, while the truth was that Chaston had not received all the relevant compliance certificates required. If Chaston could have said the truth, the boat could not have been registered; thus not used to cause deaths as it did. Furthermore, Chaston acted unethically by not bothering to find out why the vessel was missing even after receiving a report that the boat was missing in the waters. The second people who acted unethically were the Queensland Police Service. Despite having received a distress call asking for help on how to rescue the boat and its occupants, the police officers headed by Sergeant Warren Flegg ignored the distress message. This resulted in lack of appropriate response, which contributed to the loss of lives that would have otherwise been saved were the Queensland police officers acted ethically by responding quickly to the distress call made by Malu Sara's EPIRB. Australian Search and Rescue (AusSAR) is the other agency that acted unethically. Like the Queensland police officers, AusSAR behaved unethically because it failed to respond effectively to the distress call (Williams and Kendrick 2011, p. 46). This is because, were it that it responded appropriately to the call made by the water police, lives could have been saved. For instance, even after being told by Sergeant Flegg that the vessel was sinking, AusSAR did not react swiftly, but instead ignored message. Additionally, the supplier of the boat, Subsee Explorer also behaved unethically. This is because, despite knowing that it lacked the capacity to build a quality boat that could sail safely on the open waters, the supplier accepted the tender, which resulted in the company building a low quality boat. Accordingly, it was because of the failure of the supplier to build a standard boat that the tragedy occurred, which was unethical conduct. Although the majority of the parties in the documentary behaved unethically, there are a few who behaved ethically. Jerry Stephen is one such person who behaved ethically. This is because, after noting that the vessel was sinking, he made all attempts to save the vessel and its occupants by informing Sergeant Flegg, as well as calling for help from Queensland police and AusSAR (George 2005, p. 22). Conclusion The vessel tragedy presented in the documentary A totally avoidable Tragedy is in no doubt could have been avoided if all the parties involved could have taken their work seriously. The failure started right from the time of procuring the boat to the time of the accident. Even after the accident had occurred, the police officers and the AusSAR failed to respond appropriately to save lives, which was unethical. References ABC 2015, Four corners: “A Totally Avoidable Tragedy,” Viewed 29 August 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20090629/tragedy/ Badiou, A 2002, Ethics: An essay on the understanding of evil, page 2. Verso, Berlin. Bonhoeffer, D., & Bethge, E 1995, Ethics. Simon and Schuster, London. Crouhy, M., Galai, D., & Mark, R 2000, Risk management. McGraw Hill Professional, London. Das, S 2006, Risk management, volume 1. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ. George, S. K 2005, Ethics, literature, and theory: An introductory reader (2nd edn.). Rowman & Littlefield, London. Phillips, R 2003, Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Boston, MA. Sachs, S., & Rühli, E 2011, Stakeholders matter: A new paradigm for strategy in society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wentges, P., & Gossy, G 2008, A stakeholder rationale for risk management: Implications for corporate finance decisions. Springer Science & Business Media, London. Williams, T. C., & Kendrick, T 2011, Rescue the problem project: A complete guide to identifying, preventing, and recovering from project failure. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, New York, NY. Read More