The trolls stood on the burning deck

The sinking of HMNZS Manawanui has brought out three of the nastier human traits: The belief that everything is black-and-white, the readiness to rush to judgement, and the targeting of people who are already down. Sorry, make that four. We must not overlook plain old-fashioned bigotry.

Social media – the alter-ego of the disaffected – was the obvious avenue through which these baser instincts were given air. They were amplified, however, by some media who used faux outrage to repeat them.

Among the worst was the Daily Mail Australia, whose story of “vicious trolls” targeting the ship’s commanding officer quoted exactly what they had said online and reinforced the message with screen shots of their posts.

At the forefront of the attacks were Commander Yvonne’s Gray’s gender and sexual orientation, (prompting Defence Minister Judith Collins to call out misogyny) and direct blame for hitting a Samoan reef was implicit in many of the comments. Bigotry was not far below the surface in comments questioning why a New Zealand-born officer was not in command (Gray was born in the United Kingdom). Even Norway (where the ship was built) took a hit.

You will note that I have not repeated the posts, nor do I need to do so. I need only to give sufficient information for you to understand the nature of the attacks and to determine their relevance – or lack thereof.

New Zealand mainstream media did not descend to requoting the attacks, but it did demand immediate answers on the cause of the sinking. Those answers have not been forthcoming.

Into that vacuum sailed the pundits who, although they may not have the answers, are free to ask questions and to speculate. Writing on The Daily Blog, Tim Selwyn highlighted what he saw as discrepancies between statements that emerged following the grounding and raised a series of questions. Was Manawanui conducting a survey at the time or not? What time did the crew actually abandon ship? When did the fire start? He “confidently” ruled out fire as the cause of the accident. Did the ship lose power and, if so, why did it not drop anchor?  His verdict was that “they were far too close to the reef” and the sinking was “100% preventable”.

The Ministry of Defence says these are matters for a Court of Inquiry. It announced the membership and terms of reference on Thursday. It will enquire into the sequence of events, the cause of the grounding and subsequent sinking, and what followed including rescue and environmental consequences. An external legal review will also be conducted by a King’s Counsel.

None of this, of course, satisfies media that have become hostage to the immediacy of the Internet. The Post’s Tom Hunt asked “how did a high-spec ship, commissioned in 2019 [but actually built in 2003] suddenly hit a reef?” He went on to ask whether a power outage preceded the grounding or whether there were problems with the biofuel being used.

Such questions presuppose a single cause – everything is black-and-white – and we should have answers NOW.

Writing in the Sunday Star Times, Andrea Vance, described the refusal by Defence Minister Judith Collins and her ministry to answer basic questions pending the Court of Inquiry as “sophistry”

What failed: Man or machinery? Why was the ship so close to the reef, and not using a smaller craft to survey? And is under-investment in the fleet to blame? I’m willing to bet thse are things the navy already knows the answers to.

I am as anxious as anyone to know why the Manawanui was lost but, now well beyond the pressures of a newsroom, I can see two reasons why the answers have not been forthcoming.

The first is that there could be legal implications, not least of which is the question of liability.

Section 64 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act states that it is an offence to negligently allow a ship to be lost, stranded or hazarded. Anyone “responsible for the navigation, control, operation, or propulsion of a ship” who is convicted of such an offence is liable to up to two years imprisonment. Stating a cause in the absence of all the relevant information could potentially prejudice a fair trial if negligence was an issue.

The second reason is that ships are complex machines, operated under complex systems of control, in complex environments.

This was made abundantly clear in an excellent opinion piece originally published by London’s Daily Telegraph and reprinted in the Weekend Herald. It was written by a former Royal Navy officer Commander Tom Sharpe, who captained HMS Endurance when it, too, came close to being sunk. You can read the article here.

He said he wrote the piece “partly to inform, but partly also to correct some of the narratives and commentary that have emerged following the incident, many of which appear to have their basis in misogyny rather than hard-earned sea time”.

He said there were only a few ways a ship could run aground, and listed them:

• You don’t know where you are on the chart through human or system-induced navigational error.
• You do know, but the chart is wrong.
• You know where you are and the chart information is correct but conditions (wind, tide etc) overwhelm your ability to hold position.
• You suffer an engineering defect and the subsequent loss of control sees you run aground.

He also noted “showboating” and deliberately running aground to prevent sinking, neither of which apply here.

However, the real power of Sharpe’s article lay in the way he laid out the complexities. These involved matters such as naval operation of vessels built for commercial purposes (Manawanui began life as the Star Perseus, a dive support ship on the North Sea oilfields), the mix of factors that are in play when a ship is in distress, the accountability of those responsible for various functions aboard, and how the aftermath plays out.

It was a clear and insightful article that should cause what Collins described as “armchair admirals” to pause for thought. Sharpe concluded:

Hopefully this gives an idea of what might have happened last weekend while highlighting the complexity and risk navies take every day in the interests of defending their respective countries.

Those who have leapt to question the competence of the captain, often it seems based on her gender or sexuality, should take a breather.

Personally, I will be raising a glass to 75 sailors who for a few hours, miles from help, would have wondered if they had seen their last sunset – but hadn’t.

It may also give journalists some understanding of why their questions have yet to be answered. Personally, I’m prepared to wait…in the interests of accuracy and, if necessary, natural justice.