Fukushima is Worse

Last night, New Zealand's mainstream media reiterated that the Fukushima nuclear disaster was officially recognized as an accident similar in scale to Chernobyl, and that typhoon Roke, was heading towards the stricken nuclear power plant, which was devastated in the 11 March earthquake and tsunami.

The main fear is that even more radioactive material will over flow into the sea and surrounding areas due to heavy rainfall. High winds could also displace radioactive particles across a larger area.

The plant has already been leaking vast amounts of radioactive water into the nearby ocean, with strontium-90 levels measured in June at 240 times above safe limits. Last month, nearly half of the children living in the Fukushima district tested positive for dangerous levels of radiation contamination.

After the major 9 magnitude earthquake, around 37 of the country’s 54 nuclear power plants were shut down for safety checks. All the nuclear plants that were closed were ordered to stay closed until their safety could be guaranteed.

The public's sentiment after the major disaster meant support for the president, Naoto Kan fell to only 16%. After the Fukushima meltdowns, he said he wanted Japan to move away from reliance on nuclear energy, which was projected to grow from approx 33% to 53% of the countries energy requirements by 2030.

Naoto Kan formally resigned just prior to the August elections, and Japan's parliament backed the former finance minister of the Democratic Party, Yoshihiko Noda to become prime minister. Noda then informed the public that he wanted to reopen the closed nuclear power plants.

"From spring through next summer, we must bring them (the reactors) back up as best as we can, because if we have a power shortage, it will bring down Japan's overall economy," Noda said in an interview with the U.S. daily today.

Commercial production has re-started at some nuclear power-plants after strong lobbying from nuclear industry workers, who were recently caught posing as members of the public to promote their industry. Kyushu employees accounted for more than 30% of all messages sent in support of the Genkai plant being reopened, in what was an under reported major scandal.

However the majority of Japanese do not want to see the nuclear power plants reopened, especially the dangerous ones that experienced containment failures after the earthquake. As of June 2011, more than 80 percent of Japanese say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government information on radiation. There's been many demonstrations, the largest of which occurred in Tokyo on 20 September.

Anti-nuke demonstration with approx 100,000 people in Tokyo

It's apparent that the Japanese authorities are ignoring the will of the people in their quest to reopen the dangerous nuclear power plants. What is even worse is that a lack of reporting by mainstream media is allowing the nuclear power industry to undertake a coverup of the Fukushima disaster.

One would think that with the potential risk Fukushima posses, the authorities would make a precise measurement of radiation fallout available to the public. But despite elevated levels of radioactive idodine-131 being detected in the water supplies of 19 different US cities, the EPA stopped making data available on 5 April. Radiation levels in the US then started to increase.

In my opinion, the official recognition that Fukushima is as bad as Chernobyl is grossly underestimated, as the disaster is ongoing, has already released more radiation than Chernobyl and has the potential to get a lot worse.

The RWNJ's Freakout!

The Greens launched their fantastic Green Jobs policy today. It's a well thought out and progressive plan to move New Zealand forward into a clean and productive future.

Greens co-leader Russel Normal did a great job at highlighting the guts of the policy in an online broadcast today, also answering the medias questions and showing that the plan is robust!

Some of the highlights:

Greens will ramp up the Heat Smart home insulation program ensuring it is rolled out to a further 200,000 homes over the next 3 years.

Greens plan to create 100,000 new green jobs that will strengthen the economy and protect the environment. There will be no additional borrowing to achieve this.

Greens won't sell state energy companies, they'll use them to lead export potential. Clean energy is a huge export opportunity for NZ.

The Greens plan to uphold the Kyoto protocol.

Some additional information that was particularly interesting:

UK supermarkets boycotting our fish because of destructive fishing practices serves as warning we can't take our clean, green brand for granted.

If we had 1% of global clean energy market we could develop 40 to 60 thousand new jobs!

Despite the Greens plan being beneficial for New Zealand in both reducing unemployment, increasing productivity and protecting the environment, they've been rubbished by many right wingers...

Even the Prime Minister is saying that the "Greens are dreamers" and the plan is "silly economics." Steven Joyce also chimed in with his ugly little self. Here's the pick of the bunch of nuttiest reaction from the RWNJ's so far:

TrueblueNZ - Watermelon Russell Norman- Still Trying the “Green Jobs” Con

Russell Norman’s drooling idiot propaganda flies in the face of reality and should be confronted for the witch doctor talk it really is. But who is going to confront him on this nonsense?

PEPANZ gets Served

PEPANZ spokesman John Pfahlert was humiliated in a Gisbourne Herald article today.

He'd made claims that the court action Greenpeace and Te Whanau a Apanui were undertaking against the government was a stunt to keep their opposition to petroleum exploration in the public eye running into the election.

The article pointed out that the application would not get into court until well after the election, so it would have been poor planning if it had been designed as an election stunt. 

The Gisbourne Herald also ran a great letter by Terry Miringaorangi, that pretty much sums up the sentiments felt by many people throughout New Zealand:

Not on my land... Saturday, September 17, 2011

 
As an owner of landblocks along the East Coast from Whangara to Opotiki, I will not allow any mining or drilling on the lands of my tupuna. Why? Because I say so.

This crazy National Party gives out permits to oil giants that place Tangaroa at risk, but now they seek to place the mother of Tangaroa, Papatuanuku, in danger.

I urge all the landowners to protect the whenua that has been handed down to them. If you need guidence, don’t take other people’s views and make them yours. Just think of your own kuia and koro who brought you up and who taught you right from wrong — that is where you will find your answer. Kia kaha koutou.

TERRY MIRINGAORANGI

There are some things that are worth more than a short term financial gain at the expense of the environment.

It's a very selfish thing to sacrifice the environment and disregard the needs of future generations. We should look further ahead and take into account our responsibility to ensure a clean environment for future generations.

There are implications to following down a destructive oil exploration path that's been shown in stark reality with the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which is still adversely affecting inhabitants in the gulf of Mexico.

We can learn from those mistakes and take advantage of worldwide innovations to create a progressive country not beholden to the oil companies.

A Conspiracy to Protect John Key

I was interested to see a video of a press conference today on Gordon Campbell's excellent blog, where John Key is questioned about Warren Tucker releasing declassified documents to right wing blogger Cameron Slater.

It reminded me that I'd tried to get to the bottom of the debacle concerning whether Phil Goff had been properly briefed about possible Mossad agents in New Zealand. At first I wrote to the Ombudsman and made a formal complaint under the OIA:

Private and Confidential

Dear Ombudsman,

I write to lay a formal complaint against Warren Tucker for a breach of the Official Information Act 1982.

1. That a request was made by Cameron Slater and granted for information that was not personally relevant to him.

2. That the request was made for secret information held by the NZSIS that was specifically declassified by Warren Tucker so that it could be released under the OIA.

3. That the information was used for a purpose not in connection with which the information was obtained.

4. That the information has been used by Cameron Slater in a vexatious manner and that Warren Tucker knew of the intent of Cameron Slater to use that information in a vexatious manner before releasing it to Cameron Slater.

5. That the release of information was undertaken in a prejudiced manner.

6. That previous requests for the same information were made by other interested parties but only declassified for Cameron Slater's request.

7. That the release of information breaches laws concerning confidentiality between Warren Tucker and the leader of the opposition party.

8. That Warren Tucker supplied information not defined in Cameron Slater's OIA request.

9. That Warren Tucker broke normal NZSIS protocols to facilitate the release of information that would not normally be given.

10. That the information was released for the purpose of discrediting Phil Goff.

11. That the information was released because of a personal interest Warren Tucker (and John Key) had in seeing the information made public.

12. That the manner in which the documents were redacted was undertaken to fabricate an incorrect meaning when the documents were published by Cameron Slater.

13. That Warren Tucker ignored the grounds on which documents can be refused to be released under the OIA.

14. That Warren Tucker has abused his position.

I would appreciate acknowledgment that you have received this email. I look forward to your reply.

Unbelievably, my request in bold that my formal complaint be kept private and confidential was ignored by the Ombudsman's Office:

COMPLAINT AGAINST NEW ZEALAND SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Thank you for your email of 6 August 2011.

You have raised concerns about the NZSIS treatment of requests for information concerning briefings the Director had given to the Leader of the Opposition. These are not matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsmen under the Official Information Act 1982 and because the Ombudsmen do not have jurisdiction over the NZSIS under the Ombudsmen Act 1972, I have referred your complaint to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.

Leo Donnelly

Deputy Ombudsman

 On 29 August 2011 07:59, Carole Cole Carole.Cole@justice.govt.nz wrote:

Dear Sir

The Ombudsman's Office has referred your message of 6 august to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The Inspector-General's jurisdiction in respect of complaints is limited to any activity of an intelligence or security agency has or may have adversely affected a New Zealand person who complains or the law of New Zealand may have been contravened.

Please advise whether you have been personally adversely affected in this matter if so how, and whether there is any question of law arising not mentioned in your message to the Ombudsman.

Yours faithfully

Carole Cole 

Personal Assistant to the Inspector-General

Looks like they'll use the exact same rule that should have been applied to the release of previously secret information to Cameron Slater... that the information is not directly relevant to the individual making the request/complaint. It's a rule outlined in the Official Information Act that should have been adhered to by Warren Tucker.

Dear Carole Cole,

As outlined in the initial complaint to the Ombudsman, I believe there has been a breach of the Official Information Act 1982.

The complaint relates to politics. A breach of law that disadvantages one politician over another effects all New Zealander's. I believe as a New Zealand citizen that the law of New Zealand has been contravened.

The question of any further law arising will be determined when I have received a response from my initial complaint.

I specifically requested information in my previous email: Would you be so good as to highlight what section of the Ombudsman Act 1972 states that the NZSIS is not under the Ombudsman's jurisdiction in cases where there is a possible breach of the OIA?

I would appreciate an answer to that question.

On 29 August 2011 12:25, D P Neazor the Inspector-General wrote:

Dear Sir,

I have read your response to Ms Cole. 

Official Information matters are for the Ombudsmen to deal with, not me. If you want an explanation about them you will have to ask the Ombudsman's Office.

So far as my complaints jurisdiction is concerned, the Act under which I operate in my view is clear: I enquire into any complaint by a New Zealand person that that person may have been adversely affected by any act, omission, practice, policy, or procedure of an intelligence and security agency. 

In my view your response does not indicate that you come within the category of people whose complaints are to be investigated, so I will not proceed further with it as a complaint. 

The alternative would be for me to enquire of my own motion into a matter involving compliance with the law by an intelligence and security agency. I do not see it as my function to become involved in politics, which you say this is. Nor do I see any breach of the law of a kind I need to investigate. Accordingly, I will not respond further to your document. 

Yours faithfully

 D P Neazor

Well I thought that was rather rude... particularly because it was Warren Tucker who politicized a release of secret information in the first place. For an excuse that an investigation into a possible breach of the OIA doesn't need to happen because there is a political connotation to the complaint seems rather obtuse! So on the 29 August I again wrote to Carole Cole at Justice:

Dear Carole Cole,

D P Neazor informs me that my formal complaint concerning the possible breach of the OIA is not the jurisdiction of the Inspector-General of Intelligence & Security. If this is the case, why was my privacy breached and the complaint forwarded to them?

The Office of the Ombudsman has informed me that they have no jurisdiction over the NZSIS under the OIA. Could you please clarify who's jurisdiction my formal complaint falls under? I do not think it is acceptable that an organization that is funded by the tax payer is unaccountable and should not adhere to law outlined in the OIA.

Could you also provide information confirming jurisdictional requirements of the Inspector-General of Intelligence & Security and the Ombudsman? Please be specific and provide exact excerpts from relevant Crown Acts?

Please respond to the other questions that have not been answered within my previous emails?

In response to D P Neazor's email:

I said the complaint relates to politics. I also stated that the breach could effect all New Zealander's. It is not the political aspect but the breach of New Zealand's law that should be investigated. I believe there has been a clear breach of the Official Information Act as outlined in my initial complaint. I therefore do not think the dismissal of my complaint is justified.

It would be democratic for the Inspector-General of Intelligence & Security and/or the Ombudsman to reconsider investigating my formal complaint concerning a possible breach of the OIA by an employee of the NZSIS.

That's about where things are at with that one. The Ombudsman says that none of the fourteen items listed in the initial complaint fall under their jurisdiction and the Inspector-General of Intelligence & Security says that he wont investigate because of politics.

They effectively cover Warren Tucker and John Key's arses, and we may never know who is actually telling the truth. Although this obvious picking and choosing what laws to abide by points in only one direction if you ask me.

Anyway here's the video that reminded me of our faltering democratic process. Check out how angry Key gets when questioned about his role in the nasty affair:

Eroding the Right to Privacy

On the 14 September it was reported by TVNZ that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute 13 of the people charged after the anti-terror raids that badly damaged police relations with the people of New Zealand.

Two days later that report was contradicted by this Otago Daily Times article that said they were not going to be charged because the Police had used unlawful means to gain evidence... namely trespassing and illegal video surveillance.

One has to ask the question; why did the Police ignore the law in the first place, and unlawfully pursue civilians on private land, breaching their warrants and privacy laws... and why has this breach of law only been picked up now?

The terror raids happened on 15 October 2007... that's nearly four years of harassment that these people have been subjected to. Let's not forget the cost of the raids themselves and the ongoing court process... This debacle is going to cost the taxpayer millions and millions of dollars. And for what? A few firearms charges. FFS!

Not to be thwarted by a silly little thing called justice, National is moving to suspend the Supreme Court decision on the inadmissibility of video evidence attained unlawfully under current legislation. National is going to use urgency once again to ram through a change to the law to give Police more powers to spy on civilians.

Radio New Zealand reported today:

The Maori Party has said it cannot support knee-jerk legislation to make the police's unlawful behaviour lawful, while the Greens say the use of urgency is offensive in all but the most exceptional of cases.

A Tuhoe leader, Tamati Kruger, says the move will erode an already poor view of the law by Tuhoe people.

Attorney-General Chris Finlayson says:

Rushing retrospective legislation under urgency to allow police to continue video surveillance is not an attack on the presumption of innocence.

However it's unknown at this stage whether the law change will be retrospective to include the Urewera 13.

What is obvious though is National is eroding our civil liberties on an unprecedented scale. Removing the right to silence, the right to choose your own lawyer and the right to a jury trial just a few measures to ensure the prison population continues to grow. Now they want to remove the right to privacy and make the police not beholden to New Zealand's Bill of Rights Act 1990... Unbelievable!

Instead of ensuring that we have an equal society that provides for everybody, National is hell bent on increasing state powers and undermining the very fabric that holds our society together. Their pursuit of totalitarianism based on a presumption of guilt, all at the expense of current law, is something that should not be allowed to happen.

It's undemocratic and dangerous governance that will end badly.

Don Brash says $4.7 Million

In a blatant attempt to whip up fear, Don Brash posted today about the Greens plan to make New Zealand prosperous again, showing us all just how senile he's become.

The Greens propose that the current form of measuring prosperity needs to include the benefits of having an unpolluted environment. They acknowledge that wealth is not only defined in monetary terms.

Despite the Greens well thought out and forward thinking plan, Don Brash went on the attack, calling his post Beware Greens' Orwellian Double-Speak:

America affords us a salutary lesson in what not to do," Dr Brash adds. "Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on creating hundreds of these 'green' jobs: $4.7 million per job according to one estimate I have seen! The net effect has been simply to add to the country's indebtedness—hardly conducive to jobs for all, well-fed children and clean rivers. Yet this is what the Greens are proposing for New Zealand.

$4.7 million per job... what has he been smoking? The ever irrelevant Don Brash is starting to make things up in his dotage.

What he doesn't seem to comprehend is that New Zealand will only have true prosperity if we protect our environment. Sacrificing the environment for a short term gain that disregards future prosperity is as stupid as it comes.

The Greens have a comprehensive plan to achieve sustainability and financial prosperity... Unlike Act who would kill the ETS entirely and allow our country to continue to be irreparably polluted. The Greens plan includes the best of both worlds. We can have financial prosperity as well as a clean environment in New Zealand. That is what true prosperity means.

Don Brash's Act party is fighting against a powerful tide of change. Not only do environmentally conscious policies make money, they're ultimately future proof.

According to Pure Advantage:

Once upon a time, New Zealand was the cleanest nation in the world with (even further back) a bright economic outlook.

Today we’re quietly slipping down rankings on just about every environmental and economic performance indicator. New Zealand’s environmental performance was ranked first out of 146 countries in 2006.

Last year we came in 15th. GDP is a sad 20% below average OECD countries. Australia is 20% above average. New Zealand’s GDP ranks 57th in the world, behind Nigeria and Kazakhstan.

Green is our competitive advantage, but there’s work ahead to claim it.

Part of claiming that competitive green advantage will be getting rid of dead wood... Now you know who I'm talking about.