The Regulations Review Committee rejected our complaint 6 days after the hearing.
This was apparently before they considered information from independent expert Dr Mary Redmayne who addressed matters they raised during the hearing.
The committee advice they relied on the government experts. We have challenged this because there was apparently no conflict disclosure from or for Martin Gledhill, the consultant called in by the ministry of health who through his EMF consultancy represents both government and telco interests.
I’ve had a series of follow-up communications with the Clarke of the Regulations Review committee asking for release of all relevant information, including the timing when various decisions were made by that committee. I will post a copy of some of these at the bottom of this post for those who are interested.
I will also post a copy of Dr Mary redmayne’s evidence for the committee which challenges some of the assertions by Martin Gledhill as soon as Im able to. I understand she will also post a copy on her “Redmayne Reports” Facebook page.
Original post: the Outdoors Party Regulations Review Hearing
The NZ Outdoors Party had a big day in Parliament yesterday presenting our complaint on the 5G (NESTF) Regulations to Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee. Thank you to the amazing NZ Outdoors Party Board, candidates and team, NZ and world expert Dr Mary Redmayne and the incredible crowd who attended to support us.
Sadly the responsible Minister Julie-Anne Genter chose not to attend despite my personal invitation to her.
Our view was that the government had no answers to the multiple and serious concerns we raised about the injustice of these Regulation which allow 5G celltowers and other infrastructure outside homes, schools and on our streets without any public consultation based on the flawed assumption that compliance with the dated and controversial NZS2772:1 1999 means that emissions are “safe for all”.
Since the hearing an important paper was tabled in the EU.about conflicts of interest in ICNIRP. This is the very possibility that Martin Gledhill, consultant for Min Health denied being aware of.
“We very much agree with the title and content of the latest publication on Microwave News, which
reads “ The Lies Must Stop, Disband ICNIRP – Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever” . There are
two major casualties in this polarised debate: the truth and public health. Both are too important
not to protect with all that we have. That is what we consider as our responsibility as elected
Here is the Parliamentary video of our submission and the reply by MBIE, MfE and MinHealth.
Here is a summary of what we presented:
NESTF 5G Complaint to Regulations Review Committee- Outline
1 Introduction to Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc(Biochemistry & Microbiology) RSHDipPHI
Advisor to ORSAA (Oceania Radiation Safety Advisory Authority),Commissioner of ITNJ Memember of International Attroeny’s Action Network
and the NZ Outdoors Party (Co-Leader)
2Criteria for regulations review
Standing orders – 318-320 and in particular SO 319(2)(a)- The Committee accepted complaint relates to this ground and the reference to NZS2772:1 1999 in NESTF Regulations.
3 The problem with the NESTF Regulations 2016 ( passed by former Minister for the Environment Nick Smith)
Regulation 13 makes RFEMR emission from 5G and other celltowers and infrastructure a permitted activity if Reg 55 is complied with.
Reg 55(2) This reguation is complied with if the facilty is installed an operated in accordance with NZS2772:1 1999 and other requirements re notice to local authority….
This means that no public consltation is required, ther eis no hearing, no opportutny to add conditions or to consider alternative locations which minimise public exposure.
4 Multiple problems with NZ s 2772.1 1999.
I invite you all to look at NZS2772:1 1999- a copy has been provided:
- It is over 20 years old
- It is difficult and expensive to obtain – $128.70 for electronic copy, $143.00 for a hard copy. Very few copies are publicly available. Few people have ever read it at all, let alone carefully. Contrary to expectation that our legislation is transparent and accessible.
- It has been controversial and deficient since inception (refer Preface)
- it is almost incomprehensible to read or understand for most people. It is unsuitable as and was never intended to be a legal standard.
- It is based on a April 1998 ICNIRP Guidelines. ICNIRP is a privately funded entity that has pre-selected members and no public accountabilty (refer Preface) . ICNIRP recognises only “established health effects”.
- It is designed to protect only against the “heating effects” of RFEMR on an adult male.
- It claims to adopt a precautionary effect by guessing a safety factor of x5 to allow for the difference between 40 hour per week voluntary exposure by fit working men and 24/7 involuntary exposure by the most vulnerable in our community (including pregnant women and sick and elderly) and and x10 to allow for all the uncertainties.
- NZS2772:1 1999 explictly requires compliance with Health and Safety and environmental legislation. It was never intended to replace that legislation. Other relevant legislation includes the Human Rights Act s21 and the Local Government (Community Wellbeing) Amendment Act.
- NZS2772:1 1999 offers no protection against biological effects, or for those who are electro-sensitive. It explictly excludes protection for those with metalic or electronic body parts such as a pacemaker.
- NZS2772:1 1999 pre-dates the May 2011 classification of RFEMR as a class 2B carcinogen by the WHO. Refer IARC Mongrpahs Vol 102 (418 pages of supporting scientific analysis). Cancer is a potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact ie an effect under s3( f) of the RMA.
- it does not assess effects on other species such as birds, bees, trees, crops, native species, fungi, bacteria or viruses or how exposure to this RFEMR may change the equilibrium of communities, agriculture, native forest, nature or the wider environment. it is therefore glaringly deficient as it assessor only some of the “effects” as degined by s3 of the RMA. Refer OIA response yesterday from Minister of Communications Kris Faafoi.
- Part 10 (d) Minimising exposure…. no consulation or process to facilitate this. Instead just desktop studies.
- Part 10(e) Demonstration that installations are planned and operated in accordance with approproate industry best prpactice
- Example- Sheree from Frankton upstairs bedroom across a metal roof from one of three celltowers- serious ill health B) No government authority appears to have up-to-date publicly accessible records of emissions or the testing of those emissions from radio towers, cell towers or other sources. No entity assesses the cumulative effect of these emissions.
- I have been waiting many months for information from Nelson CC and other councils about testing of exisitng celltowers, and no longer believe this information exists.
6 NZS is NOT best international practice
NZ and other “5i” states have limits 10 – 100- 10000 times higher than best international practice.
7 Serious legal mis-match between ICNIRP/NZS2772:1 1999 Criteria and what the RMA requires
The statutory criteria and standard of proof for the RMA , Health and Safety, Human Rights laws, Local Government (Communty Wellbeing ) Act 2019 and international human rights obligations do not reconcile with the standard explictly adopted by ICNIRP or de facto by NZS2772:1 1999
Environment Act “Contaminant”-includes radioactivity and electromagentic radiation
RMA- Sustainable management – broad definition- includes intrinsic effects and amenity effects
s3 Effects- include possible effects, cumulative effects, temporary effects ….
ICNIRP “establish health effects defintion and its requires met for established causation is inconsistent with this
Local Government (Communty Welbeing) Amednment Act 2019
Health and Safety at Work Act
Must identif risks and protect the most vulnerable, including those who have a disability- includes physical, physiological. Psychological (Human Right sAct s21(1)(h)- electrosensitivity
Perceived effects and related stress and psychologicla harm are effects for this purpose
NZS2772:1 1999 is grossly defective in the protection it offers
The public requires and deserves more than spin and messaging
Government response to date has focused on its messaging and spin and default to a dysfunctional advisory committee which has no coherent protocols for assessing possible health effects from rfem are and indeed whose membership is not qualified to assess health effects of RFEMR.
The deficiencies in the New Zealand standard and the legitimate public concerns have to date been consistently glossed over for commercial and telco expedients. The public interest has been ignored.
Refer yesterdays OIA response from Kris Faafoi.” event briefing-meeting with the Prime Minister’s chief science advisor and others “to explore options on messaging and a possible media briefing on public concerns around the health effects of 5G” dated 8th October 2019.
The public deserve much better. they glaring deficiencies in the current law must be addressed to give credibility to Parliament, the rule of law and this committee.
A previous select committee (the Local Government and Environment Select Committee) recommended in 28 November 2010 (Petiton 2005/179 of Sarah Allan and 3100 others that NZS 2772.1 1999 and of the composition of the government’s interagency advisory committee be reviewed to ensure the public interest is adequately protected.
Unfortunately the then NZ Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, rejected all the recommendations of that select committee. This same minister who subsequently expanded the exemption regulations to create permitted activity status for cell towers on public reserves lamppost etc.
Today is like groundhog day….despite that Committee’s report 11 yesrs later we have gone backwards …
The government is supposed to represent the interests of New Zealanders and uphold the rule of law. The Regulations Review Committee has particularly important responsibilities for maintaining public confidence and trust in government.
Extremely important that you get competent and independent advice.
Sue Grey LLB(Hons), Bsc (Biochemistry & Microbiology), RSHDipPHI
Co-Leader NZ Outdoors Party
Follow up emails:
it’s looking like they rejected our complaint before they had received or considered Dr Mary Redmayne’s response to their questions, and without any conflict disclosure for Martin Gledhill who through his EMF consultancy business works both for the government and for the Telco industry.
…Thank you for ccing this reply to me. I am struggling to understand the committee’s process.
We received advice from the regulations review committee on Tuesday, 23 June (ie before their 24 June meeting) that our complaints about the “5G” (NESTF) Regulations had been rejected by the committee.
I understand from our previous correspondence that the committee only meets once each week, so its previous meeting was the 17th of June when we and the Ministry for the Environment appeared before them.
Please could you advise when the decision was made by the committee to reject our complaint. Was it on 17 June, or was it by email or some other process afterwards? If by email please could you provide those emails and the date the decision was made
In particular please could you confirm whether the committee considered Mary’s material before they decided to reject the NZ Outdoors Party complaint, or whether they only received it afterwards.
I have previously requested all correspondence including any disclosure by or on behalf of Ministry of Health representative Martin Gledhill of his personal and business conflicts of interest. you have advised you have released all information. This does not contain any such conflict disclosure. Please could you confirm if there was any disclosure that I have not been provided with.
You will appreciate there is considerable public concern about the ongoing loss of public participation in government decision-making, the apparently lax attitude towards conflicts of interest (particularly considering that the committee deferred to the advice of the government representatives), and the apparent fragility of New Zealanders’ once respected rights and freedoms. It is accordingly very important to the New Zealand Outdoors Party that we fully understand the process adopted by the Regulations Review committee and the timing of the various events referred to above.
Thank you very much for your ongoing assistance
Sue Grey LLB (Hons), BSc