Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Pikes River Mine Disaster

Ok, it is time to stop pissing in other peoples’ pockets and make my position very clear on the Pikes River Mine disaster.

No, I am not going to pull my punches. It is, and has been from day one, a disaster. It is NOT a disaster because of anyone’s incompetence, however much other people might like to make it so. There are aspects of the handling by police, mine company, et al that I question, but I think that I can see a rationale for the approach taken. It has as much to do with empathy for the families involved than it does the perceptions of the wider public. It has as much to do with the probable situation and conditions in the mine as it does the safety of any rescue team (or individual for that matter.
I wrote the following comment in response to one particularly vociferous gent by the name of Bammbamm whose qualification to speak includes “years of service in mining” and also (implied) several science degrees.
Like so many others, including Wishart, you forget about the few hundreds of a second when the explosion occurs.
So, seeing you have such vast knowledge of the situation - you have said yourself, you have many years mining experience - and of the science involved you could perhaps give us all a brief exposition on what happens, and the effects on the human body.
Information like the air temperature, the time for that atmosphere to cool, the effects of compression and decompression, the likelihood of injury resulting from both debris and bodily impact would all be greatly appreciated.
My uneducated guesses -
Temperature reached - in excess of 1000C for perhaps 0.5 sec.
Time to cool - depends upon decompression rate. Boyles Law and all that. Could be as long as 2 secs.
Effects of compression - broken eardrums, burst eyeballs, extensive internal bleeding, ruptured liver, ruptured spleen... extent dependant upon intensity of compression.
Effects of decompression - eyeballs lost, eardrums, collapsed lungs, gas oedemas... extent dependant upon intensity
Likelihood of injury from debris and bodily impact -
Effects - could very probably be fatal.
Then you can start considering CO and CO2 effects if you want...
That was the basis of my early assessment of the miners' chances.

It is well-meaning idiots like this Bammbamm character who boil my blood. Most significant perhaps is his choice of handle – a stone-age baby cartoon character whose response to external stimuli was to either cry or destroy with a stone axe. Appropriate and well said.

The real questions in my mind are –

First, should the mining company et al have been more honest about the chances of the 29 still in the mine? The converse to that is that the ol’ probligo is again being far too pessimistic; that glass is bloody near empty!

My feeling and analysis is based solely upon seeing open air videos of BLEVEs. There are plenty of them on the ‘net. The application of what you might see there to the mine disaster depends upon; the quantity of methane involved in the mine explosion; how quickly it came out of the rock face; how far down the mine that cloud had travelled before ignition; how long the discharge of methane continued after ignition; whether the explosion also blew the coal face off; and how much of the explosion was caused by dust ignition.

Second, the talk of “survivability” is not a crock, but the chances are extremely remote to even worse. The debate centres on the presence of features such as breathing gear, safety adits, oxygen bottles (actually forbidden) and other well-meant mis-information. The crux here is that the most likely cause of ignition is human activity. Someone drops something, trips and dislodges a rock, or even a drill being blown out of a hole by escaping gas and the whole lot goes. But the real point is that the gas has to be there, in quantity, considerable quantity, to make a blast of this magnitude. Given that the mine company knows that OSHA and Police have their microscopes at the ready it is quite unlikely that their reports that the mine was clear of methane at the end of the previous shift (less than 45 minutes before the explosion?) were false. To me, that points to the likely explosive ejection of a large quantity of methane from a drill hole or cut. Does that happen? Don’t know for sure but I think we will find out.
This might help answer that question -
For the purpose of discussion in this chapter, gas emissions associated with geologic features are divided into two categories. The first includes subtle emission events that are often associated with various geologic features or anomalies. These emissions are often not easily detected without instrumentation, but may lead to hazardous accumulations of methane if not remedied. The second category includes large-scale, easily recognizable emission events such as blowers or outbursts that potentially have immediate and often catastrophic consequences. Documented methods to recognize and remedy both types of hazards have been established worldwide and are discussed here.

Although not generally considered to be hazards in domestic mines at present, both outbursts and blowers historically have occurred in certain U.S. mining districts [Darton 1915; Campoli et al. 1985]. The two features are mainly distinguished by their duration of occurrence. Outbursts are sudden, often violent expulsions of large quantities of gas, usually methane, and are generally associated with the ejection of great quantities of coal or other rock material. Blowers, on the other hand, historically have been viewed as the release of large quantities of gas, but over an extended time period of months or even years. Also, blowers are not associated with the expulsion of coal or rock material. A subset of blowers is methane bleeders, which also continually emit gas, but at lower rates and generally for shorter timeframes.

Based on past observations, outbursts and blowers are often associated with tectonically disturbed and faulted strata where gassy coals are mined at considerable depth. Thus, mine planners who are aware of such conditions should give some thought to the possibility that they will be extracting coal under conditions that have produced outbursts and blowers in other mining districts.

Hmm, there perhaps is a lesson missed by Pike River. I would need to check if Strongman was a methane explosion; it may well have been in which case there might perhaps have been a need for better planning at Pike River.


Yes, I watched the 5:30 news report on TV1 last night. NOW I think that the company is being more honest. The chances have (as I outlined above) been pretty damned bleak since 5 minutes after the explosion.

To wind this up, here is the rest of what I started writing yesterday morning –

Look at it this way. It would take me (very unfit and middle-aged as I am) at least 20 minutes to walk the 2 km to the “face”. After seeing the plan of the mine for the first time last night I consider that an “area” rather than specific position. Uneven ground, and all of the other barriers of the mine being taken into account.

A man can die from CO gas in three minutes.

It took two hours (?) to get the first rescue crews to the mine. They jump off the trucks and run straight into the mine. On the assumption that there is no residual fire, no methane, no CO (they can NOT carry oxygen – it would be one of the most dangerous substances in a mine) they gallop up the tunnel to find -

An explosion of the magnitude of this one is going to remove all, I repeat ALL of the oxygen from the immediate vicinity. That is one of the primary causes of CO generation – partial combustion due to low oxygen levels. So, a guy who was 100m “upstream” from the explosion would find a portion of the fireball travelling in his direction; low oxygen levels as a result, increasing CO levels as the air cools and sucks back from the explosion centre. He has “oxygen” from a regenerator that lasts perhaps 2 hours. That is how I read the earlier reports.

- all of the miners died in the explosion, or the following two hours from asphyxiation

Friday, November 12, 2010

There is something wrong - right twice in a week?

I wrote on the Search and Surveillance Bill just on a week ago.

Quite gratifying to read the Editorial in this morning's NZHerald -
New Zealanders stand to lose some hard-won freedoms under a bill moving largely under the radar through Parliament.

The Search and Surveillance Bill will remove an important civil liberty and expand state liberties for authorities ranging from the police to the Department of Internal Affairs.

The right to silence will fall to a new coercive power, the examination order, forcing people alleged to have knowledge of fraud or organised crime to talk to the police.

Another innovation, the production order, allows police to demand that innocent individuals or organisations hand over materials that might or might not relate to an offence carrying penalties of five or seven years' minimum jail.

Failure to comply would automatically attract a penalty of up to $40,000 or imprisonment.

And the bill gives authorities an invitation to force the news media to reveal confidential sources, threatening the public airing of some of the country's most important, and uncomfortable, news stories.


There is a danger that the media's right to protect confidential sources - a privilege recognised in the Evidence Act 2006 and qualified only by a judge's decision that public interest might outweigh confidentiality - will be subverted by police access to examination and production orders.

Search warrants cannot make individuals talk. Once any agency has new powers it inevitably deploys them to save itself time or scrutiny.

That matters for the public. Important revelations of wrongdoing by criminals, business or political leaders and, crucially, investigating authorities themselves are invariably from confidential sources.

News is, by one definition, something that someone, somewhere, does not want made public.

It is not just the removal of the right to silence. It goes well beyond the removal of media confidentiality.

Also included are the right to use information obtained in a search to initiate other prosecutions against people not directly involved in the initial investigation. The allowance of "fortuitous evidence" or "fortuitous discovery" is open to obvious misuse.

There is also the right to search on suspicion and without warrant any person "associated" with a serious crime. That could mean individual investors in SCF being tapped, simply because they had invested in a failed investment company. "Fortuitous discovery" of totally unrelated evidence resulting from that tapping could be used for related charges.

Among all of this there is no protection given to the innocent if the Police, SFO, Dog Police, Drug Police or Thought Police use their powers in error, or in breach of what little would remain of personal rights of the individual.

To fully understand this Bill, we need to go back to its origins. There is no question in my mind it is the child of the Police's complete fuck-up of the Ruatoria raids, the inability of the SFO to effectively decode investment scams (despite already having some of the powers contained in the SAS Bill), the Kahui case ...

This Bill is a grotesque mistake. If this government wants to survive the next election it must withdraw the Bill immediately and bury it deep enough in Karori Cemetery that it never sees the light of day again. Anyone wanting election in 2011 must have the repeal of this Act (if it does survive and get passed) as its first priority.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

A quiet reflection and retrospective...

I have to say that GWB’s acknowledgement of the distinct lack of WMD’s in Iraq has a sad feeling of ennui to it; a tired feeling of “better late than never” is completely overwhelmed by the fact that he truly believed the lie. I must add my personal acknowledgement that there is no joy – on my part at least – in knowing that along with a great many others I was right all along.

The saddest aspect to the whole sorry saga is that the success of the “Bush lie” remains. And, for the comfort of those who might be thinking I am about to deny the Holocaust I explain.

The “Bush lie” is not that 9/11 never happened, nor any of the far fanciful conspiracy theories that have sprung up around and since those tragic events. The “Bush lie” swings far more on the conflation of statism, realpolitik, and religious zealotry on the part of the few.

“Statism”, at least the context in which I prefer the term –
“… the ideology of statism that holds that Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state. The concept of statism, which is seen as synonymous with the concept of nation, and corporatism repudiates individualism and exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline.[4]

This first part of the conflation stems from, and clearly explains; the actions of al Qaeda; the actions taken by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq specifically (and militarily). The justifications, outcomes and consequences of all are not at issue but are now matters of history. What is critical is the confusion (of and by) the individual – such as Saddam, bin Laden, Bush and Cheney – with Nation.
“A usually expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest.”
“Governmental policies based on hard, practical considerations rather than on moral or idealistic concerns. Realpolitik is German for “the politics of reality” and is often applied to the policies of nations that consider only their own interests in dealing with other countries.”

The combination and confusion of statism and realpolitik is understandable, especially on the part of the US as these are the foundation stones of their modern Republic. Yeah, I know that will get into the noses of quite a few from the US right but please remember, as your blood pressure rises, that that statism is exactly what you are trying to fight against.

Realpolitik comes from, rather than leads to, the opportunities presented by events. There is no question that 9/11 was seen as a prime opportunity to gain considerable advantage in the national interests of the US, quite apart from the social and national impact of the attack. Those opportunities were seen as providing potential solutions to a number of perceived and quite intractable problems looming in the not too distant future. Similarly, the political motives of binLaden and al Qaeda were aimed at consolidation and confirmation of their statism by the creation of their realpolitik.

If you detect a subtle nuance here you are not wrong. The difference between the two comes from the motives of those involved. On the US side the actions and motives of individuals were undoubtably intended as for the national good. For alQaeda’s part, the motives and actions of individuals were as equally intended for personal reasons as for the good of their “State”.

It is that point which raises the third colour in the blend. I can remember very clearly the very first, short, statement made by GWB after 9/11. I can remember the very visible wince from Cheyney as Bush stated the US’s intention to proceed with a “crusade against terrorism”, corrected part way through the phrase to “war on terrorism”. The Freudian slip of “crusade” for “war” has to be accepted as unintentional. That it slipped into the line indicates that its use had likely been discussed prior and discarded as being the wrong word to use. The religious connotation did not fit.

The implied “US-Judeo-Christianity versus Islam” would immediately become a religious war. The consequence would be to exclude many, if not all, Middle Eastern states as potential allies. On the other side, the Bush slip was exactly what alQaeda wanted. It was their intention from the beginning to make 9/11 the beginning of “the greatest ever jihad against Islam’s greatest ever enemy”. The accidental and momentary slip of the tongue was more than they could have hoped for. That the intended enemy was Israel rather than the US became forgotten from the instant the first aircraft hit.

I can not be certain, and I doubt that Bush’s memoir will cover the point, whether the intensity of the religious reaction in the US to 9/11 was intended. It best remains as an “unintended consequence”; one which had only beneficial impact for those in power in the US; one which focussed public attention on “the enemy” of Islam; and a consequence which again was entirely what alQaeda had hoped for. It is this part of the “Bush lie” that remains. It is evidenced – mostly on the right to far right – as an intense and enduring fear and hatred of ALL Islam. In saying that, I realise that it is an over-simplification because it is also strongly evident to the left as well in that part of US which strongly supports Israel. That section is not Jewish, nor Israeli. There is a strong nationalist religious element to the support of Israel in realpolitik and the American electorate.

I started with the statement that the success of the “Bush lie” still remains. It is not a lie that was spoken, nor perhaps even intended by GWB himself. I have consistently put the “Bush lie” in quotes because it is not a conscious untruth, an intended misleading. It is a consequence of a whole society (intentionally? I do not think so) taking the fact, the statism, the realpolitik, and the religious zealotry as one.

On the other side, bin Laden (if he is still alive) and alQaeda have succeeded probably beyond their wildest dreams in provoking the US people into that conflation. Their success in that regard has not reached, nor suaded, more than a very few of the people of Islam. To that extent they have failed.

They have however created a “State” which carries their power. It has no boundaries. It has no recognition as a formal “State” for that reason. It needs neither of those. They have also created a realpolitik which will have a large influence on the actions of other nations into the future. The reason for alQaeda is enough to ensure its continuance into the immediate future. The very great danger in the longer term will be realised if the realpolitik of the alQaeda jihad becomes the norm of Islam. It will become so if the mirror image of the west’s conflation (statism/realpolitik/religion) can be created from the actions of western states against Islam through alQaeda.

Allah willing it shall not.

Friday, November 05, 2010

Memo Robyn Malcolm...

Something to remember when "negotiating" your next contract with a movie mogul...

The value of your labour is set by the market. To find out what that might be worth, ask for the moon and see what you are actually offered.

It is an approach which is commended to all those who wish to earn their living in the arts.

If you, or any other budding actor, wants security there might be better ways of achieving that objective. The problem is that in these enlightened times not even working for the State will give you the security you want.

How is about taking your chances like everyone else?

Memo to all those who bitch and howl...

... about over-regulation and over-legislation by the State, and the loss of freedoms. So here y'go to all those Brer Wabbits out there. Get stuck in to this piece of State sponsored removal of the individual's right to privacy and justice and I will walk every step with you.

I never thought I would see the day that I was on the same side as the Greens. It shows the dangers of the word "never".

The House has before it at the present time an extremely pernicious and dangerous piece of legislation. It has been floating in and out of the House since 2008. The initial Bill lapsed at the end of the Labour Government and it was re-written for current consideration and introduced last year. The current debate is summarised here.
People being investigated by police over serious fraud-related offences or gang crimes will no longer have the right to remain silent, under a Government bill.

And refusing to give information on a gang murder or fraud-related extortion, could earn a jail sentence of up to one year.

The Search and Surveillance Bill was reported back to Parliament yesterday with significant changes, after an outcry over the sweeping powers it would have given to up to 70 Government agencies.

But Parliament's justice and electoral committee has kept provisions overriding the right to silence, and giving police, Customs and Internal Affairs the right to break into homes to bug and secretly film suspects.

But the agencies can use these powers only if they are investigating offences punishable by prison terms of seven years or more, or for particular Arms Act offences.

Ahh, that might be what the government wants us to hear. My immediate reaction is a very long, and cynical "Ahhhhhhhh... Yeah.......... Right."

The official summary of the Bill says -
The aim of this Bill is to implement " ... the Government's decisions on the legislative reform of search and surveillance powers", based on the Law Commission's report, "Search and Surveillance Powers" (NZLC R97) [1] .

A Bill entitled "Search and Surveillance Powers Bill" (the former Bill) was introduced in the previous Parliament on 17 September 2008 and was described in Bills Digest No 1679. In respect of that Bill, the Order of the day for first reading was discharged on 02 July 2009.

The Search and Surveillance Bill (this Bill), which is the subject of this Bills Digest, was introduced on 02 July 2009 and awaits its First Reading.

The former Bill is the basis of this Bill and this Bills Digest (which should be read with Bills Digest No 1679 ) describes the major differences between them.

Main Provisions
Warrantless road block
The Bill provides that the power to establish a road block for the purpose of arresting suspected offenders and those unlawfully at large may be utilised in relation to any person suspected of having committed a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment, and the power may be utilised in relation to persons subject to an arrest warrant, except where that warrant has been issued under Part 3 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (Part 2, Subparts 9 and 10, Clauses 27-30).

"Windfall evidence" relevant to other offences may be admissible
The Bill provides that windfall evidence is lawfully obtained where an enforcement officer is obtains that evidence while lawfully undertaking surveillance using a surveillance device and where that enforcement officer could otherwise have obtained a surveillance device warrant in relation to such windfall evidence.

In particular the Bill provides that " ... if, in the course of carrying out activities authorised by a surveillance device warrant or while lawfully using a surveillance device in relation to an offence, a person obtains any evidential material in relation to an offence:

" ... that is not the offence in respect of which the warrant was issued or in respect of which the surveillance device was lawfully put into use, as the case requires; but

" ... in respect of which a surveillance device warrant could have been issued or a surveillance device could have been lawfully used"

That evidence " ... is not inadmissible in criminal proceedings by reason only that the surveillance device warrant that authorised the activity that obtained the material was issued in respect of a different offence or, as the case requires, that the material was obtained from the use of a surveillance device that was put into use in respect of a different offence" (Part 3, Clause 51).

Stopping vehicles for the purpose of search
The former Bill authorised police officers to stop a vehicle where a power to search the vehicle existed.

This Bill provides a similar power for enforcement officers to stop a vehicle for the purposes of search, together with an offence relating to failing to stop when required to do so by an enforcement officer in circumstances where the defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known that the person exercising the requirement to stop was an enforcement officer (Part 4, Clauses 117 and 169).

New Zealand Defence Force
The Bill provides that its provisions do not apply to New Zealand Defence Force personnel, except where they are exercising functions and powers pursuant to Acts to which the Bill applies (Part 3, Clause 80).

Personal appearance of a search warrant applicant before the issuing officer
The Bill changes the criteria for exempting personal appearances before, or oral communication with, the issuing officer to require that:

the issuing officer is satisfied that the question of whether the search warrant should be issued can properly be determined on the basis of any written communication by the applicant (including all the matters listed in Clause 96(1)-(3)); and

the information required by Clause 96(1)-(3) has been supplied to the issuing officer; and

the issuing officer is satisfied that there is no need to ask any questions of, or seek any further information from, the applicant (Part 4, Clause 98(4); Clause 96(1)-(3)).

Assistance in searches of a person
The Bill changes the special rules about searching persons to provide that an enforcement officer may, if he or she considers that either or both of the following are in the interests of the person to be searched, request:

the assistance of a medical practitioner or nurse;

the assistance of a parent, guardian, or other person for the time being responsible for the day-to-day care of the person to be searched (Part 4, Clause 120(1)(f)).

The Bill also provides that if the search is to be a strip search, the enforcement officer may request the assistance of another enforcement officer who is;

authorised under any other enactment to conduct strip searches; and

of the same sex as the person to be searched (Part 4, Clause 120(1)(g)).

Penalty levels
This Bill changes the penalty levels from the former Bill in the following ways.

Failing to comply with an examination order
In the case of an individual the former Bill provided penalties of, in the case of an individual, imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $15,000 or both and, for a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $40,000. This Bill provides, for individuals, the single penalty of imprisonment for up to one year. The penalty for a body corporate is unchanged (Part 4, Subpart 8, Clause 165).

Failing to comply with an production order
There is no change in this penalty; in the case of an individual, a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year.; in the case of a body corporate, a maximum fine of $40,000 (Part 4, Subpart 8, Clause 166).

False application for examination order, production order, search warrant, surveillance device warrant, or residual warrant
In the former Bill, the penalty was for a term of imprisonment not exceeding three years. In this Bill the penalty is for a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year (Part 4, Subpart 8, Clause 167).

Leaving search location in breach of direction
There is no change in this penalty: imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months ((Part 4, Subpart 8, Clause 168).

Failing to stop or failing to comply with directions in relation to search of a vehicle
This offence carried a penalty under the former Bill of a fine not exceeding $1,000. This Bill provides that the penalty may only be a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months (Part 4, Subpart 8, Clause 169).

Failing to carry out obligations in respect of computer searches
Under the former Bill this offence carried a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding $2,000, or both. This Bill provides for only one penalty: a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months (Part 4, Subpart 8, Clause 170).

Disclosing information acquired through the exercise of a search or surveillance power
The former Bill provided only a penalty, in the case of an individual, of a fine not exceeding $10,000 and, in the case of a body corporate, of a fine not exceeding $50,000. In this Bill the penalty in the case of an individual, is to be only a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months and, in the case of a body corporate, a fine not exceeding $100,000 (Part 4, Subpart 8, Clause 171).

Amendments, repeals, and miscellaneous provisions
The former Bill and this Bill amend search and seizure powers that are used for law enforcement purposes in the following Acts: Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997; Animal Products Act 1999; Antarctic Marine Living Resources Act 1981; Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994; Aviation Crimes Act 1972; Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981; Civil Aviation Act 1990; Conservation Act 1987; Customs and Excise Act 1996; Dog Control Act 1996; Electoral Act 1993; Electoral Finance Act 2007; Extradition Act 1999; Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993; Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996; Food Act 1981; Gambling Act 2003; Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996; Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003; Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004; Human Tissue Act 2008; Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007; International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000; International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995; Land Transport Act 1998; Local Government Act 2002; Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978; Marine Reserves Act 1971; Maritime Security Act 2004; Maritime Transport Act 1994; Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003; National Parks Act 1980; Overseas Investment Act 2005; Ozone Layer Protection Act 1996; Petroleum Demand Restraint Act 1981; Prostitution Reform Act 2003; Radiation Protection Act 1965; Radiocommunications Act 1989; Reserves Act 1977; Resource Management Act 1991; Sale of Liquor Act 1989; Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989; Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007; Wild Animal Control Act 1977; Wildlife Act 1953; and Wine Act 2003.

This Bill also amends the search and seizure powers used for law enforcement purposes in fifteen additional Acts which are as follows: Animal Welfare Act 1999; Biosecurity Act 1993; Children, Young persons and Their families Act 1989; Commodity Levies Act 1990; Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001; Driftnet Prohibition Act 1991; Employment Relations Act 2000; Fisheries Act 1996; Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992; Major Events management Act 2007; Meat Board Act 2004; Pork Industry Board Act 1997; Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989; Social Security Act 1964; and the Tax Administration Act 1994 (Part 5, Subparts 1-4, Clauses 175-284; Schedule to the Bill).

In the former Bill, the Electoral Act 1993 and the Electoral Finance Act 2007 were to be amended in respect of the search and seizure powers that are used for law enforcement purposes in those Acts. Those Acts are not so amended by this Bill.

This Bill also amends ten Acts in relation to their search and seizure powers (and related provisions) used for regulatory purposes. These ten Acts are: Anti-Personnel Mines Prohibition Act 1998; Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1996; Commerce Act 1986; Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003; Electricity Act 1992; Fair Trading Act 1986; Forests Act 1949; Gas Act 1992; International Energy Agreement Act 1976; and Weights and Measures Act 1987 (Part 5, Subpart 2, Clauses 285-294).

Copyright: © NZ Parliamentary Library, 2009
Except for educational purposes permitted under the Copyright Act 1994, no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval systems, other than by Members of Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the consent of the Parliamentary Librarian, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.This document may also be available through commercial online services and may be viewed and reproduced in accordance with the conditions applicable to those services.

1.Search and Surveillance Bill, 2009 No 45-1, Explanatory note, General policy statement, p. 1.

Well, quite frankly this is far too important for anyone to be concerned about the strictures of copyright. I reproduce the entirety, unedited in any way, and with full acknowledgement of its source, because it deserves to be noised abroad.

This is what the Government is DOING.


Monday, November 01, 2010

Things that make you go "Hmmmm"...

Snipped from the heading of a google search...

Oh, click on the image to get it to a reasonable size.