Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘security’

Dodgy Taxi Cameras

Posted by on June 17th, 2013

The Herald on Sunday published this story about a model of security cameras used in taxis that is failing to provide usable images that can be passed onto Police after alleged incidents of violence and sexual attack.

Security cameras became mandatory in almost all taxis in 2011 when the Government made a rule change in response to the murder of Auckland driver Hirren Mohini.

The NZTA has attempted to wash its hands of any responsibility for the installation of dodgy cameras:

In a statement, NZTA spokesman Andy Knackstedt said the agency was aware of allegations of substandard or counterfeit equipment. “Issues of quality and authenticity are civil matters between the sellers and buyers of the equipment,” he said.

That’s not good enough. Only cameras that appear on the NZTA’s list of approved models can be installed in taxis. The Hikvision cameras at the centre of this scandal appear on that list. It was therefore reasonable for the three companies that have installed them to expect they met the standards required in Schedule 2 of the rule change.

Michael Woodhouse says he is looking into it and well he should. If the NZTA has failed make certain that these cameras meet basic functional requirements, the Government must take responsibility for the fact that vital evidence that should have been available to investigate serious and violent crimes could not be retrieved. Unless the cameras are counterfeits and not what they say they are, this is clearly a matter of Government responsibility.

I wonder if this is really the first a minister has heard of this issue.

 


Reflecting on yesterday

Posted by on October 6th, 2011

In a lot of ways I would rather not write this post, but I have been reflecting on what happened yesterday in the Parliamentary debating chamber and there are some things I want to say. The incident itself is not a political matter It was an awful experience, and had potential tragedy written all over it. The man who tried to throw himself into the chamber just a couple of feet from where I was sitting, clearly is troubled. Like many people I see in my electorate office it sounds like he has major problems with government agencies, and he was agitated. He was heading over the balcony head first, to a four metre drop, onto a collection of desks, chairs and people. To me it was the act of someone with deep and difficult issues and problems. I hope he is now getting help to deal with those.

The actions of the security guards and members of the public who pulled him back and then had to struggle further with him were courageous and certainly saved him and others from serious injury. I know that all MPs are grateful for their actions. From our party, Phil managed to speak to the guard before he was taken to hospital and Annette visited him last night in A and E (where, I am told, he waited nearly 6 hours before getting medical attention), and I understand he is doing ok today.

But there is a political element, and it was introduced by the Prime Minister. I just can not fathom his reaction. I could not hear everything he said, and it is not picked up on video because his microphone was not on, but from talking to others, it is quite clear he was talking about the incident and saying “Labour should be ashamed”, and that is “down to you”. He then did a strange gesture moving his hand across his throat (you can see it at 2.06 on the video below). What follows from that is the angry reaction from Labour members, and what I think was a very measured and calm response from Phil Goff.

Emotions were running high for all of us, and I accept that the PM would have been as disturbed as anyone in the Chamber. But now that he has had time to reflect, would it hurt for him to acknowledge that somehow trying to link Labour to the incident was wrong, inappropriate and highly likely to cause extreme offense? He has said he was making some reference to DPS. I am not sure what the connection was actually, albeit a DPS officer assisted once the man had been hauled back over the balcony. In any case, that does not make it right to link Labour with the incident.

Parliament can be a high emotion, robust and stressful environment, and in the heat of the moment some terrible things get said. If Mr Key had come out and said yesterday that he was sorry for linking Labour to the incident but that it was a very stressful time, he might actually have gone up in my estimations. Unfortunately, he has gone down.


What Key really thinks about DPS

Posted by on May 9th, 2011


Apparently blokes need more security

Posted by on May 5th, 2011

TVNZ reported this evening that John Key’s jaunts to his holiday home in Hawaii are costing the taxpayer even more than we thought, with the Diplomatic Protection Service picking up an extra $30,000 bill for his summer holiday. The overall budget for the DPS has blown out by more than $800,000 a year.

Now I think it’s good that Kiwi PMs have protection, but does anyone seriously think he needs to take a bunch of security guards with him when he goes on holiday at his exclusive, compounded holiday home in Hawaii? Helen Clark almost never took DPS with her when she was on personal travel overseas. Michael Cullen often refused DPS protection when he was acting PM.

Since John Key became PM there has clearly been a big increase in the number of DPS hanging around with the PM. I somehow doubt that the threats to the PM’s life have massively increased since the blokes have been back in charge.

Of course, it could be that the massive $800k budget blow-out is explained by the NZ Herald article this morning:

Prime Minister John Key has revealed he is not immune from his boot camp mania … his personal guards have set up a personalised boot camp for him … He said his Diplomatic Protection Squad personnel sometimes changed his early morning runs to something more challenging – including carrying full jerry cans “if they’re trying to make things difficult.”

Presumably $800k for Key’s own ‘personal trainers’ aren’t one of the ‘nice to haves’ Key and English say we’re all going to have to live without? But then again, so far it seems it’s everyone else that’s going to have to learn to live with less, not the ministers themselves…


Say “No” to Mr Burns

Posted by on August 7th, 2009

A respondent to my recent blog opposing more dams on the Clutha River suggested NZ should go nuclear. I wish it was a wind-up, but the myth of cheap safe nuclear needs to be exposed whenever it is raised.

I’m happy to summarise why Labour is so resolute in our opposition to nuclear power in NZ.

Nuclear waste remains dangerous for thousands of years. Not hundreds, but thousands. So long that it is hard to comprehend.

The environmental risks posed by toxic radioactive waste are real. So are accidents. Remember Chernobyl?

A nuclear power plant would be NZ’s biggest security risk. NZ is a low-risk country – not a no-risk country.

These are serious issues, as is the misuse of nuclear materials for weapons. The consequences of nuclear war are so dreadful we seldom talk about them these days.

These realities are enough for me, but some people still say “do it, it’s cheap”. But it’s not.

Nuclear would be far, far more expensive for NZ than our renewables, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, they don’t come small. The high capital cost of constructing an individual nuclear power plant means large plants are required in order to recoup the multi-billion dollar investments required.

Because of the small size of the NZ market (which needs an average of around 130MW of new capacity each year), if you built a 1000MW nuclear plant you would build 7 years ahead of demand. You would have paid for 7 times as much as you need that first year. That means the effective unit cost of the power you actually need is much higher.

Like all other types of generation, nuclear is sometimes unusable while maintenance is carried out. So you if you were reliant on a big chunk of power like that, you’d need some extra reserve. A number of smaller renewable generating facilities provide that diversity without having to have extra reserve generation and so are cheaper for us.

You would have to import the nuclear fuel, and pay for the cost of an independent nuclear regulator and safety agency.

As if that’s not enough, the costs of decommissioning are huge, as is the cost of securely disposing of waste for thousands of years. The UK looked at those costs recently and from memory found the decommissioning costs alone were close to the original construction costs.

So, notwithstanding the Nats relaxing foreing investment rules in NZ, I doubt that Mr Burns or Homer will be coming to NZ anytime soon.