20 Aug 2013
Auckland waterfront polluted by Mobil
Today, the NZ Herald reported:
This is typical of Mobil who is known internationally for damaging the environmental and then fighting tooth and nail through the courts to not have to pay for the clean up.
What's the bet that the taxpayer will end up having to pay.
One of the main issues here is that the 'significantly polluted' soil won't be treated...it will simply be dug up and moved somewhere else to potentially be an environmental hazard in the future.
So why are we only just finding out about this now? With the site being significantly polluted surely it shouldn't take ten years before something is done about it.
That's ten years whereby contaminants were likely to be leaching into Waitemata Harbour and ten years when people could have been adversely affected from being inadvertently exposed to the contamination. There certainly weren't signs warning the public or adequate fencing to keep them out.
Even if there was no clause within the lease that stated the land should be clean and tidy upon it's return, Mobil is still obligated to clean up their pollution.
Firstly, Mobil will need to prove that any of the sub-surface contamination wasn't caused by them or their subsidiary companies during any of the lease periods. If they cannot do that conclusively, they should be made to pay for the sites remediation.
Whether the site wasn't intended to be lived on or that there was already some pollution before Mobil started to contaminate the area is beside the point. There simply is no excuse for continued spills of hazardous materials, especially in a built up area such as Auckland. Just because the area was designated heavy industry doesn't mean Mobil can pollute to its hearts content.
Along with remediation costs, I would slap the dirty bastards with a hefty fine as well. After all, there are laws that pertain to polluting New Zealand with petrochemicals, but unfortunately they're hardly ever applied.
A petrol company says it should not have to pay clean-up costs for decades of petrochemical pollution on prime waterfront land.
The civil case by the Auckland Waterfront Development Agency against Mobil Oil New Zealand began in the High Court at Auckland yesterday before Justice Sarah Katz.
The agency claims Mobil is liable for $17.9 million in clean-up costs for two sites in Wynyard Quarter, part of the former tank farm.
The sites were used by Mobil or related companies for petrochemical storage and more recently other bulk chemicals and lubricants.
This is typical of Mobil who is known internationally for damaging the environmental and then fighting tooth and nail through the courts to not have to pay for the clean up.
Mobil vacated the sites in 2011, and Waterfront Auckland plans to redevelop the area with parks, apartments, shops and commercial premises.
Both parties agree the site is now significantly polluted but disagree on the contamination's source and Mobil's liability for the clean-up.
What's the bet that the taxpayer will end up having to pay.
One of the main issues here is that the 'significantly polluted' soil won't be treated...it will simply be dug up and moved somewhere else to potentially be an environmental hazard in the future.
Some of the pollution comes from fill material used when the land was originally reclaimed, including waste from the old Auckland gas works.
Agency counsel Alan Galbraith, QC, said it was seeking remediation costs only for Mobil's contamination, not for the gas works' waste.
Mr Galbraith said the case hinged on new leases signed in 1985, when the new pipeline from Marsden Pt to Wiri was commissioned and oil companies were expected to progressively pull out of the tank farm.
Those leases expired in 1993, but Mobil and Ports of Auckland were unable to agree on new terms relating to site remediation, so the leases continued on a periodic basis under existing terms until 2011.
So why are we only just finding out about this now? With the site being significantly polluted surely it shouldn't take ten years before something is done about it.
That's ten years whereby contaminants were likely to be leaching into Waitemata Harbour and ten years when people could have been adversely affected from being inadvertently exposed to the contamination. There certainly weren't signs warning the public or adequate fencing to keep them out.
The 1985 leases, unlike earlier versions, included a clause related to keeping the land clean and tidy.
Mr Galbraith said that meant Mobil was obligated to return the land "in good condition and that means free of contamination".
Even if there was no clause within the lease that stated the land should be clean and tidy upon it's return, Mobil is still obligated to clean up their pollution.
For Mobil, Michael Ring, QC, said there was no breach of the tenancy contract, and the company was not liable for costs. He said the "clean and tidy" clause was never intended to require Mobil to remove historic sub-surface contamination.
Firstly, Mobil will need to prove that any of the sub-surface contamination wasn't caused by them or their subsidiary companies during any of the lease periods. If they cannot do that conclusively, they should be made to pay for the sites remediation.
Mr Ring said that in 1985 it was not envisioned the site would be used for anything other than heavy industry.
It was already heavily contaminated from reclamation fill, which included lead, arsenic and cyanide pollution. "This was not a pristine green meadow that somehow has been destroyed by sub-surface contamination." APNZ
Whether the site wasn't intended to be lived on or that there was already some pollution before Mobil started to contaminate the area is beside the point. There simply is no excuse for continued spills of hazardous materials, especially in a built up area such as Auckland. Just because the area was designated heavy industry doesn't mean Mobil can pollute to its hearts content.
Along with remediation costs, I would slap the dirty bastards with a hefty fine as well. After all, there are laws that pertain to polluting New Zealand with petrochemicals, but unfortunately they're hardly ever applied.
GCSB public meeting - video
The Coalition to Stop the GCSB Bill organised a powerful line-up of speakers for this public meeting in front of a packed Auckland Town Hall and tens of thousands of online viewers -- each speaker explaining why this GCSB Bill is bad for our country.
Speakers in order are:
Dr Rodney Harrison QC (lawyer)
Kim Dotcom (the most high profile victim of illegal GCSB spying)
Jon Stephenson (journalist and war correspondent)
Seeby Woodhouse (Founder of Orcon ISP and 2004 NZ Young Entrepreneur of the Year)
Helen Kelly (CTU President)
Professor Jane Kelsey (Law Faculty Auckland University)
Marama Davidson (Maori activist and blogger)
David Shearer (Labour Party Leader)
Russel Norman (Green Party Leader)
Winston Peters (NZ First leader)
Hone Harawira (Mana Party Leader)
Nicky Hagar (investigative journalist)
H/T The Daily Blog
19 Aug 2013
Pete George vs Cameron Slater
It seems that Peter Dunne's number one fan, Pete George, hasn't taken kindly to Cameron Slater criticizing the leader of the United Future party. In a post yesterday, George lays into old blubber guts, likening the Whale Oil Beef Hooked site to "a bull in a political china shop." He also makes some other observations that I find myself agreeing with:
Although drenched in rhetoric, George then highlights the differences between Slater's promotion of Whale Oil Beef Hooked as some sort of fine upstanding publication and his childish banter on twitter, something the deluded right-winger is notorious for.
Cam and his blog assistants are happy to dish up shit but they aren’t so happy being held to account for it. When challenged they launched into a bout of defensiveness and attempted lash backs on the blog.
Although drenched in rhetoric, George then highlights the differences between Slater's promotion of Whale Oil Beef Hooked as some sort of fine upstanding publication and his childish banter on twitter, something the deluded right-winger is notorious for.
Recently on his blog Slater claimed to have long game political goals, so this is confusing. “Cam Slater critically analyses politics” conflicts with this, where Slater seems more intent on lighting fires under politicians so he can watch them burn.
Critical political analysis? Or crappy political arsonist?
It’s difficult to see him as the former when he seems more intent on the latter. In politics people who keep playing with matches burn bridges, and are likely to burn themselves out.
By all accounts it's a conclusive trouncing that Slater hasn't answered. Although the annoying Pete George is attempting to defend a highly hypocritical politician, he has gone about highlighting a serious flaw in Slaters' propaganda.
It's my guess that the RWNJ has resiled himself to being a mere blogger. Even if he wanted to pursue a career in politics, it would undoubtedly fail. That's mainly because of leaked documents from a National party Board meeting showing they consider Slater and his accomplice, Simon Lusk, to have a "very negative agenda for the party" and that they effectively don't trust them.
Considering that vote of no confidence along with a number of other damaging incidents, Slater has assuredly ended any chance at a career in politics.
However, with his last vestiges of credibility gone, the oily slug really has nothing to lose as a propagandist. Let's hope he continues to promote his extremism that will assuredly help to turn middle New Zealand against National.
Wiretap legislation economic disaster
Yesterday, the NBR reported:
It's little wonder the service providers have unanimously come out strongly against such badly devised legislation. The TICS bill will clearly undermine their business models by giving their competition an advantage. Vikram Kumar explains why:
In fact it won't just be damaging to the telecommunications companies, it will be damaging to New Zealand's economy as well.
So much for National being business friendly.
I wonder if the government has even considered the huge cost to New Zealand's economy because of their stupid legislation? Probably not! Instead they seem totally focussed on creating a mass surveillance state and damn the consequences.
When the NBR starts questioning the governments position with such veracity, you know that National has got things horribly wrong! Claiming that the NBR is just fear-mongering along with New Zealander of the year Dame Anne Salmond, Rodney Harrison QC, the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission etc isn't going to cut it this time John.
The TICS and GCSB bills look set to not just undermine our democracy, they will damage the National party and their coalition partners as well. At least there's a silver lining to the governments undemocratic law changes that will undoubtedly be an economic disaster for New Zealand.
The government is planning to issue secret orders to service providers when the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill ("TICS Bill") becomes law to force them to create interception capability for surveillance agencies. This has been approved by cabinet and is therefore official Government policy.
What's not clear is if the mechanism of a Ministerial directive will also be used to gag the service provider? Or is the secrecy merely a guise to allow compliant service providers to pretend they haven't been forced to create a backdoor for the government?
Either way, the impact on New Zealand online service providers, and New Zealand as a country, could be truly devastating.
It's little wonder the service providers have unanimously come out strongly against such badly devised legislation. The TICS bill will clearly undermine their business models by giving their competition an advantage. Vikram Kumar explains why:
However, the consequences of this approach are very damaging and dangerous - when you don't know who to trust, you trust no one. There will be a loss of confidence across all service providers in New Zealand. A lack of information is quickly filled by rumour and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).
In fact it won't just be damaging to the telecommunications companies, it will be damaging to New Zealand's economy as well.
As an example of just how bad the consequences are, consider how there is now a loss of trust in all US-based online service providers from Snowden's revelations. While there may be debate about the exact nature of the backdoor, there is no doubt that 9 online companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple - do provide the US Government with secret, lawful access. Gag orders makes things worse - two email providers facing actual or potential secret orders have shut down but are unable to provide any real information, stoking FUD.
As a consequence of the loss of trust, The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has projected a $35 billion loss to US cloud companies. A Forrester analyst projects global losses at $180 billion. Meanwhile, European companies are likely to get an advantage over New Zealand and US companies, including a greater push to keep things within Europe.
So much for National being business friendly.
I wonder if the government has even considered the huge cost to New Zealand's economy because of their stupid legislation? Probably not! Instead they seem totally focussed on creating a mass surveillance state and damn the consequences.
Official government policy
Examples from around the world show just how corrosive secret spying capability orders and gag orders are to trustworthiness, both to the country and its online service providers. Secrecy also aids compliant online service providers, happy to go along with the Government without insisting on a warrant, protected by the Principle 11 exceptions in the Privacy Act. A real corporate-government surveillance partnership.
Secret orders, secret compliance, secret evidence in courts... we just need secret courts to complete New Zealand's descent into a totalitarian state.
People will quickly figure out that they have no way of knowing which particular service provider has or hasn't given the government a backdoor. The logical approach would be to assume that all service providers are compromised.
Which business is going to take the risk that their, say, Board papers or accounts, are secretly available in real-time to the NZ Police, SIS, GCSB, and the Five Eyes partners? In particular, overseas businesses will be spooked from doing business with any New Zealand based online service provider. They will know that warrants can be issued to safeguard New Zealand's economic well-being just as easily as they are for national security and law enforcement.
Will this strengthen the case for the likes of Google and Microsoft to pull out of New Zealand rather than risk getting a secret directive for a backdoor from the ICT Minister?
Will New Zealand cloud companies decide to move out to more democratic countries?
When the NBR starts questioning the governments position with such veracity, you know that National has got things horribly wrong! Claiming that the NBR is just fear-mongering along with New Zealander of the year Dame Anne Salmond, Rodney Harrison QC, the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission etc isn't going to cut it this time John.
The TICS and GCSB bills look set to not just undermine our democracy, they will damage the National party and their coalition partners as well. At least there's a silver lining to the governments undemocratic law changes that will undoubtedly be an economic disaster for New Zealand.
18 Aug 2013
Kerre's lost it
Today, the NZ Herald reported:
The GCSB will ask nicely to be allowed to spy on people? Get real! Kerre (Woodham) McIvor clearly hasn't bothered to actually read the damn legislation. Instead, she's relying on the government's spin to form her opinions, mainly because she's a biased right winger.
That might be fine for people who aren't paid to investigate such topics, but it isn't acceptable practice from a supposed journalist. If McIvor is going to come out in support of such controversial legislation she should at least take the time to read what is proposed.
So what is her reason to support Key's GCSB amendment bill:
If that's the best argument the right wing can come up with, the government has lost the GCSB debate big time.
This paragraph goes right back to the nothing to fear, (because she apparently has) nothing to hide argument. Giving this statement the once over lightly, it might seem reasonable...after all, if the government is merely conducting anti-terrorism surveillance, non-terrorists shouldn't be affected, right?
Wrong! The "nothing to hide" argument mistakenly suggests that privacy is something only criminals desire, when privacy is a fundamental right for all people, especially if they want to retain a functional democracy. A government that has essentially no restrictions around people's privacy will assuredly abuse that power.
Kerre then says that it's stupid to give the GCSB unlimited powers to spy on all New Zealanders, which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. If she has nothing to fear, why would she be worried about how unlimited the GCSB's spying powers are?
If McIvor had taken the time to read the GCSB amendment bill (PDF), she might have realised that it allows for the GCSB to spy on all New Zealanders and give that information to any foreign agency of their choosing. They don't even need a warrant to pass on that information, which is clearly not a reasonable compromise.
Another problem is that the bill is designed to get the GCSB off the hook for their illegal spying on Kim Dotcom and at least 88 other New Zealand citizens. The spooks aren't being held to account for breaching the existing law and nothing in the new legislation will ensure an increase in accountability.
+McIvor+-+idiot.jpg)
Saying that Key did well by "fudging the uncomfortable bits" is really just complimenting the Prime Minister for not answering questions. Sure, he has the gift of the gab...but that doesn't mean the proposed changes in law are beneficial for New Zealand or in fact required at all to increase our nations security.
For a much more thorough report on what the GCSB amendment bill actually means, read Rodney Harrison's excellent article that was published in the NZ Herald yesterday. Now that's somebody who understands exactly what the proposed law change actually means, which is more than can be said for Kerre bloody McIvor.
I think the bill sounds sensible enough - for the GCSB to spy on New Zealanders, they must ask nicely, explain why and then be subject to a review of their investigation.
The GCSB will ask nicely to be allowed to spy on people? Get real! Kerre (Woodham) McIvor clearly hasn't bothered to actually read the damn legislation. Instead, she's relying on the government's spin to form her opinions, mainly because she's a biased right winger.
That might be fine for people who aren't paid to investigate such topics, but it isn't acceptable practice from a supposed journalist. If McIvor is going to come out in support of such controversial legislation she should at least take the time to read what is proposed.
So what is her reason to support Key's GCSB amendment bill:
I couldn't give a fat rat's bum if they monitored my house and my life, but I think it would be stupid to give a government agency unfettered, unmonitored, unlimited access to its citizens. They must be accountable for every decision they make and they must be watched closely.
If that's the best argument the right wing can come up with, the government has lost the GCSB debate big time.
This paragraph goes right back to the nothing to fear, (because she apparently has) nothing to hide argument. Giving this statement the once over lightly, it might seem reasonable...after all, if the government is merely conducting anti-terrorism surveillance, non-terrorists shouldn't be affected, right?
Wrong! The "nothing to hide" argument mistakenly suggests that privacy is something only criminals desire, when privacy is a fundamental right for all people, especially if they want to retain a functional democracy. A government that has essentially no restrictions around people's privacy will assuredly abuse that power.
Kerre then says that it's stupid to give the GCSB unlimited powers to spy on all New Zealanders, which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. If she has nothing to fear, why would she be worried about how unlimited the GCSB's spying powers are?
The bill seems like a reasonable compromise and Key was Mr Reasonable himself when it came to selling the party line and fudging the uncomfortable bits that come with running a spy agency that interacts with others around the world.
If McIvor had taken the time to read the GCSB amendment bill (PDF), she might have realised that it allows for the GCSB to spy on all New Zealanders and give that information to any foreign agency of their choosing. They don't even need a warrant to pass on that information, which is clearly not a reasonable compromise.
Another problem is that the bill is designed to get the GCSB off the hook for their illegal spying on Kim Dotcom and at least 88 other New Zealand citizens. The spooks aren't being held to account for breaching the existing law and nothing in the new legislation will ensure an increase in accountability.
+McIvor+-+idiot.jpg)
Saying that Key did well by "fudging the uncomfortable bits" is really just complimenting the Prime Minister for not answering questions. Sure, he has the gift of the gab...but that doesn't mean the proposed changes in law are beneficial for New Zealand or in fact required at all to increase our nations security.
For a much more thorough report on what the GCSB amendment bill actually means, read Rodney Harrison's excellent article that was published in the NZ Herald yesterday. Now that's somebody who understands exactly what the proposed law change actually means, which is more than can be said for Kerre bloody McIvor.