Part 2 Section B — Get Down With The Sickness – The Sprint to Extinction.
By Ben Vidgen. (Foot noting to come).

When it come to the evidence we would expect a government to review when making such a huge call and what the definition of science is let us recall that use to be a core function of the DSIR (Department Scientific Institute Research) who were a neutral body well paid and fire walled against lobbyist and overly ambitious politician happy to exceed their mandates. It was advice which the people of New Zealand could be confident came with some form of accountability. That got chopped in 1986 which is about around the same a lot of our democratic checks balances and protections went south.

Other examples include the cover up of GMO testing under Clark, the use of 2.4 million children as vaccine guninea pigs for mengitis which later saw Noway apologise and Lab technician receive an ACC payout after being amputated by told were safe.

In Japan vaccine choices are not a monopoly and include Pfizer, AstraZeneca  and Novavax (which replaced contaminated 1.6 million contaminated Moderna) plus antiviral agents such Ivermectin are available without restrictions. Its a health policy aimed at catering for people health choices while offering strategies to of not eliminating the threat greatly reducing it with out infringing on rights based on the ruling “Since the vaccine may cause side effects or allergic reactions for certain persons, in general, ordering employees to take the vaccine will not be considered reasonable and appropriate. Thus, an employer may not mandate vaccination as a condition of employment and the employees may decide to take the vaccine at their own discretion“.

Japan has also used technology to eliminate and reduce cross contamination as they combat the disease in an asymmetrical manner to balance human rights with the need for public safety. This is opposed to a one track strategy which while beneficial to the profit of medical providers for whom in a post TPPA world it also established ethically dubious and dangerous legal and commercial precedents that seriously infringe upon human rights as politicians have opportunistically cited the crisis as grounds for suspended principals of rule using determination methodology that blatantly ignored principals of natural justice. A tasks it has being assisted in by national media motivated by financial incentives and the agenda of their on offshore shareholders (see –) as it has fuelled misinformation on alternative health strategies largely (on the basis of an inherent political bias ) via a reluctance to endorse any idea which came of the populist reactionary working class right wing movements American politics as ironically that same national media lacked the intellectual sophistication required to understand how these movements and their leaders natural propensity towards opportunism itself has taken perfectly sound ideas and distorted or mispresented them for their own gain. The national media in New Zealand case has then compounded that idea encouraged by neoliberal politics (who gives us pink haired support of privatized academia as opposed to actual accountable scientific advice of non politicalised agencies such as the DSIR (which was scrapped under Rogernomics) seeks to mirror reactionary right wing politics opportunism by surfing the instant rejection that emerges from reactionary left wing politics to any idea that were offered up by their counterparts (who in turn have hijacked those ideas for self gain) with out first establishing their merits good or bad once you strip them of the baggage of weaponized politics.

Ivermectin is one example of this (being popular with the ‘right wing’ anti vaxers left wing pro vaxers have misreported the full story of Invermectin denouncing it every bit selectively as the right has promoted it out of context as national media makes zero attempt to offer up balanced coverage of the issue. Ultra violet is another example of this Japanese can do.

TOKYO — A machine that uses ultraviolet light to disinfect hospitals has been shown to deactivate the novel coronavirus in just two minutes, providing a potentially effective method of removing the virus from public spaces. 

Texas-based Xenex Disinfection Services recently announced a successful test of its LightStrike robot against the virus. The robot, sold in Japan by medical equipment maker Terumo, emits light of wavelengths between 200 and 315 nanometers to decontaminate beds, doorknobs and other surfaces. The LightStrike robot uses ultraviolet light to destroy pathogens. Two or three five-minute rounds of ultraviolet radiation leave pathogens too damaged to function. This technology has been proven to work against multidrug-resistant bacteria and the Ebola virus, according to Xenex. The LightStrike robot was also shown to be 99.99% effective in eliminating the coronavirus from N95 masks, which would reduce the risk of reusing this vital protective equipment amid an acute global shortage.

Japan has balanced the right of people to choose their own medical choices by encouraging vaccination via ensuring consumer choices while also encouraging a focus on preventative medicine and social courtesy.

 new study has revealed that an innovative chewing gum may be effective at reducing Covid transmission, providing a new weapon for curbing the spread of the disease.

A collaborative endeavour between researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, The Wistar Institute, and Fraunhofer USA has determined that a novel chewing gum containing a plant-grown protein can trap the SARS-CoV-2 virus, reducing viral load in saliva and lowering Covid transmission. The findings of their study are published in the journal Molecular Therapy and may help devise an effective new weapon for battling the pandemic.

In New Zealand their has being zero focus on preventive medicine as journalist are shaped by an environment in which in 2020 450 journalist lost their jobs and media covid relief funding was offered by the government (sufficient to reemploy 110 professionals) conditional to select media outlets conditional to media writing stories promoting issues the government want to cover. Thus it is not surprise that the populace received any meaningful information of how antiviral worked or where illuminated to the fact Professor ŌMURA Satoshi, has discovered more than 500 compounds made by microorganisms, leading to the development of new disease fighting drugs. Or that he won his Nobel Prize (jointly awarded to William C. Campbell, a researcher at the Merck Institute for Therapeutic Research) for the discovery of the antibiotic avermectin and the development of the anti-parasitic drug, ivermectin, a derivative of avermectin. Ivermectin being produced from microorganisms isolated from a soil sample he collected. Nor has the public being encouraged to review how pro TPPA governments cosy relation ship with big pharma which has robbed them of the choices of side affect free medical options.

Andrew Herxheime an Oxford Emeritus fellow in 1995 wrote for example “We learn with great concern that Medsafe [the New Zealand Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority], a part of your ministry, intends to stop funding the intensive medicines monitoring programme (IMMP) next year. In its 27 years’ work the IMMP has contributed very valuably to the safety of medicines in New Zealand and worldwide. Drug regulatory agencies in other countries and professionals working on the safety of medicines have admired and envied it because it has so successfully identified previously unrecognised adverse reactions, measured risks, and identified risk factors… Patients and the public want to see more, not less, attention paid to monitoring the safety of medicines. We believe that the cost of the programme is a small price to pay for the safety of your citizens. Its achievements are considerable, although for most of its life it has employed only one half-time medical researcher. Adverse reactions to medicines result in an enormous cost to health and social services budgets and to patients and their families, as numerous studies across the world have shown.

A report from the United States put deaths from adverse reactions among the top six causes of death there.3-5 It has been estimated that 15-20% of the health budget goes to the management of adverse drug reactions. The IMMP should be seen as a cost-effective investment in the welfare of your people. We are also concerned for the wellbeing of the 800 000 or so Maori and Pacific Island people in whom specific genetic variants affect drug metabolic pathways. The IMMP is the only drug monitoring system in place to protect these people. Its closure would, we believe, put these groups at added disadvantage and would be a medical, social, and political oversight. We see the proposed closing down of the IMMP as a serious blow to pharmacovigilance in New Zealand and internationally and we hope that you will avoid this. The IMMP has been very productive and has helped make the New Zealand Pharmacovigilance Centre one of the most effective in the world. It should be not only allowed to continue but strengthened so that it can reach its full potential and contribute even more to the safe use of medicines”.

The above is just one example of the consecutive step government both side of the parliament have taken to destroy infrastructure capable of giving government actual evidence with accountability, over medical policies as opposed to receiving “support’ from parties the government refuses to name. A situation replicated with the vaccine pass ports and traffic light legislation. Where the government refusing to release any of the policy advice it has received ahead of the introduction of legislation regarding vaccine passes. Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins even refused an Official Information Act request from the Council for Civil Liberties, saying the information would be released proactively, likely early next year. But with legislation set to be rushed through Parliament, the council wanted the Government to be open and transparent. “Chairman Thomas Beagle said early in the pandemic the Government seemed to be working hard to be transparent with its policy decisions, but that had stopped”.

On Wednesday 24 Nov the New Zealand Government rushed through a piece of legislation that effectively takes away all of your protections under The Bill of Rights. There was NO consultative process. The opposition were all stunned. Amnesty International were stunned. The Human Rights Commissioner was stunned. Crown law response…

There was NO consultative process with the people (well 48 hours when it should have been months). Quote… Speaker Trevor Mallard has lashed the Labour Government for its urgent passing of Covid-19 “traffic light system” legislation, though he has allowed the law to be passed. The Government on Wednesday passed legislation that would seriously curb the freedoms of unvaccinated people, in a 24-hour session of urgent law-making to ensure the Covid-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill was in place for December 3 (The day after submission on the new digital passport close) , when the new “traffic light system” of Covid-19 restrictions will come into force.

Opposition MPs, legal experts and the Human Rights Commission have all condemned the move as poor law-making, and law professors have questioned the Government’s broad drafting of the law. “There has not been a more important piece of legislation passed by Parliament this year, yet we’ve done it in 24 hours without consultation,” Victoria University law professor Dr Dean Knight said.

Measured public law academics Andrew Geddis and Dean Knight have called the speed with which the law is being passed a “constitutional disgrace”. Even the almost-immediate banning of semi-automatic firearms after the Christchurch terror attack allowed for a desultory select committee process.

This legislation has very significant implications for basic human rights, not to mention for private sector employers who must administer the rules.

That this coincided with Labour sudden embrace of right wing economics which also saw the death of the Department of Scientific Institute & Research a political neutral and fire walled against corporate lobbying, is no coincidence.

Now we get pink hair and privately funded propaganda (financed by despots who chop up critics and kidnap people on the high seas) posing as science and independent think tank. Were also getting a relabelling of hazardous goods to be in line with European standards which like the USA FDA are fit for purpose. Never mind the bullions paid out in law suit by Pharmaceutical companies after their FDA approved products turned out not only to be not safe but that firms responsible knew this. Opoid pain killers being the most famous due the fact that word pain killer was literal and saw the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Never mind that as we issue mandates for products that as the Japan example shows do have adverse side affects based on provisional safety approval for products given exemption by the FDA a multi billion trial is under way for Elizabeth Holmes,the daughter of a high ranking US Aid Official who own products turned out to be an utter sham. Every one knows that story but few have stopped to consider the fact her life threatening products also had FDA approval and she managed this by making sure her board of directors was stacked with Washington’s most powerful (Trump even considered making her the head of the FDA), who in return for massive salaries and remunerations failed to ask any probing questions.

Nut hey their word good enough for David Parker the ex Pharma executive and his mates who give his policy support but wont commit to giving evidence. In what world can such an approach be seen as following the principals of natural justice that has led to the no jab no job mandate.

It could even be argued that the Attorney General’s failure to follow those principals, or recuse himself due to pass affiliation with the industry, has under existing work and safety opened up both the government and employers to private prosecutions (permissible under the Act) for putting them at risk due to known inherent risk that come with vaccines especially those with a terrible records of human ethics and record of criminal convictions based on a history of putting profits before people. When literally we don’t know what the long term of generational impact of Pfizer’s vaccine which like it or not is a new form of technology we simply do not know it it will be safe or not as no such studies for this kind of technology exit period.

equester’s details Date: 2 December 2021 Name: Ben Vidgen Email: mediadownunder@gmail.com Reference number: ENQ-42912-Y9M7R9

A NEW TECHNOLOGY OR NOT

Dear Ben I refer to your requests for information to the Ministry of Health and Crown Law, which were each partially transferred to the Environmental Protection Authority on 9 November and 12 November 2021 respectively.

You have requested the following information: Transferred from Ministry of Health 6 Medsafe states if any “COVID-19 vaccines arriving into New Zealand contain a new organism, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) will be involved. They’ll need to approve the import, development and field testing or release under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act).

7). Was EPA involved? (The same question was also transferred from Crown Law.)

10). Did EPA review the Pfizer safety data on each ingredient as they may have been approved by the American FDA or other regulatory bodies where the NZ imported Pfizer was manufactured?

Transferred from Crown Law

11). Are there any plans to review this retrospectively under proposed amendment to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 currently before the house.

Has this review considered or altered following the finding in US Senate that Covid Virus may have originated from laboratory involved in gain of function which in this context is defined as genetically grafted spike proteins — the viral keys that grant access to mammalian cells — from eight different, naturally occurring coronaviruses onto another coronavirus from the wild, called WIV1. — the widely expressed ACE2 receptor — that is used by SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.

15 EPA has a rapid approval pathway for any vaccines that are, or contain, new organisms which includes genetically modified organisms. They can look at applications at pace where needed and are working with Medsafe and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) in preparation for the vaccines.

What was the scientific basis for this and are there any plans to approve this with retrospective legislation, 1 specifically the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act) as it is being amended (2020) and is currently before parliament procedures?”

The information you have requested is below. Transferred from Ministry of Health 6 This statement is correct.

7 While this is correct, EPA was involved only in making a statutory determination under section 26 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (the HSNO Act) that the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was not an organism, and therefore was not subject to regulation as a GMO under the HSNO Act.

To put that comment in context Dr Tim Strabala, Principal Scientist, (New Organisms) posted the following on the EPA own website.

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and the EPA

“But wait – didn’t Medsafe provisionally approve BNT162b2 back at the end of January? What has all this got to do with EPA? The answer is: a lot, and nothing at all. Allow me to explain.All the biotechnology that went into making BNT162b2 puts it at an intersection that has EPA at the corner, because one of our jobs is to regulate all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Aotearoa. This is part of our job in regulating new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. As I explained above, the Pfizer vaccine has mRNA that was created outside of cells, and this is one of criteria for saying whether something is a GMO. But it’s not the only criterion. That “something” also has to be an organism.

This “organism” criterion is why the EPA doesn’t generally regulate RNA, because it is a substance, and not an organism. But with the Pfizer vaccine, there’s clearly a lot more going on than just RNA, so a reasonable person at the border responsible for giving the regulatory tick to the vaccine might have some doubt about whether or not they were looking at a GMO. The remedy for this uncertainty is to ask the EPA. This is because the HSNO Act also allows us to determine whether or not an organism is a new organism – or if something is even an organism at all, if that is where the question lies. To ensure the vaccine would not be held up at our border as a potential new organism, Pfizer agreed that going through the statutory procedure to determine if BNT162b2 is a new organism was an appropriate thing to do.

In the EPA’s determination process (which has a lot of moving parts, but I’m cutting a long story short), a Decision-Making Committee (DMC) thoroughly considered whether BNT162b2 could be seen as an organism at all. One criterion in the HSNO Act for being an organism is being capable of replicating itself. The DMC decided that the only thing that BNT162b2 was capable of producing was the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and not more copies of itself. On this basis, the DMC determined that BNT162b2 did not meet any of the criteria for it to be called an organism. And this is what I meant by “a lot, and nothing at all”. A lot was done to determine that BNT162b2 is not regulated under the HSNO Act, and no EPA approval is required for its release into the environment – in this case, “release” means jabs in peoples’ arms. In conjunction with the approval for its use as a medicine, and the relevant permissions under the Biosecurity Act given by the Ministry for Primary Industries, the determination cleared the path for the importation of the vaccine into Aotearoa,

To sum up “there’s clearly a lot more going on than just RNA” with Pfizer vaccine and while EPA determined on the basis of semantics it not an organism it clearly a GMO and new technology. One whose long term impacts are unknown and can not be compared on that basis against traditional vaccines which are also void of long term generational studies which on the basis of their use for over 100 years not turning the human race into moon bats or two headed dingoes.

A quick review of GMO using uncle Google while not sophisticated research does quickly establish that yes long term studies of GMO in food show their are many example of issue arising. It can also be established the UN position on GMO changed with the arrival of Helen Clark;

1. Whose husband is at the centre of current pro TPPA reforms of existing and failed medical system and

2. Was part of the Labour government who ;

A) First established the DHB which became tools for fraud and massive waste of resources through serial mismanagement in the city which gave us such stars of Neoliberal health reforms including;

I) David Clarke (who lost his ministerial post but not his job after repeated breaches of the Lockdown mandates)

II David Parker the former pharmaceutical rep turned Attorney General and

III Michael Swan who when convicted on multimillion dollar case of embezzlement responded why is every one picking on me I just did what all middle management does. An early warning about Swan simply got put in a draw and ‘forgotten,’

B) much like we forgot that under Clark Labour was embroiled in two scandal visa it willingness to use kiwis as as guinea pigs. One being the Corn gate which saw what Green Peace would later call a cover up visa the testing of GMO products in NZ prior to Clark e heading to the UN and the UN changing its anti GMO policy as she headed the UNDP.

C) The other being Norway.

NZMAJournalContributeSubscribeClassifiedsLogin VIEWPOINTVol 133 No 1525: 20 November 2020View in PDF Format The legacy of MeNZB and possible implications for COVID-19 vaccination | OPEN ACCESS

2007: ” MeNZBscandal: Twelve months ago the Ministry of Health welcomed a planned independent Norwegian review of claims of misconduct surrounding their meningococcal B vaccine which the MOH hoped would provide a greater degree of reassurance to the public in Norway and in New Zealand. The first report of that independent inquiry has now been released in Norway and is so critical and damning of the development of the meningococcal B vaccines that the Norwegian Minister of Health and Director of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health have both gone on public television to apologise for the damage the lies uncovered, and the damage the vaccine has caused in Norway. Rather than silence those the NZ minister and ministry dubbed the ‘anti-vax’ lobby, the report has echoed point for point the issues raised by New Zealand researchers Ron Law and Barbara Sumner Burstyn in their Meningococcal Gold Rush series over the past three years.

These issues in New Zealand include serious conflicts of interest, ministry officials lying to the Minister, substandard trials, the use of fear and coercion of children and parents and the creation in the minds of the public of an ‘monster’ epidemic that was past its peak before the roll out of the vaccine. In addition it has recently emerged that the Ministry has undertaken studies that show that babies are at INCREASED risk of contracting meningococcal disease following three doses of the MeNZB vaccine. Their response was to increase the number of doses to four in the hope that a miracle might occur. They continue to inject the toxin into as many babies as they can.

As evidence of a public apology by the Norwegian Minister of Health emerges following an independent inquiry revealing major cover-ups, and deceit relating to data used to justify the New Zealand MeNZB vaccine, Norwegian Health Min Apologies for Vaccine Scandal Tuesday, 30 October 2007, 9:37 pm Press Release: Barbara Sumner Burstyn

10. “The Pfizer vaccine was not assessed for classification as a hazardous substance under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (the Act) because human medicines are exempt from the hazardous substances provisions of the Act, as per clause 6 of the Hazardous Substances (Hazard Classification) Notice 2020: (17_22%3A50%3A42=). Transferred from Crown Law 11 We understand that the Ministry for the Environment will be responding to this question, as that is the agency responsible for policy and for legislative changes.

15 We understand that the Ministry for the Environment will be responding to this question, as that is the agency responsible for policy and for legislative changes. I hope this information is helpful…. Yours sincerely Dr Christopher Hill General Manager, Hazardous Substances and New Organisms

And lets remember Parkers advisers are so sure of the courage of it convictions that no they don’t give actual evidence they just give “support” as around the nations DHB, bled dry by decades of encouraged mismanagement, theft and privatisation, are to be replaced by a centralised format after a review of the health system headed by Privy Councillor, turned Globalist Empress Helen Clarks husband Peter Davis.

A health board now totally subservient ,due to the commercial precedent being established by this fiasco of due process, to yet another New York court of commerce who preaches no individuals have not inalienable rights that is only the privilege of multinationals and self empowering oligarchs – those who kidnap women and chop up journalists into small bits for daring to spotlight their hypocrisy. The three wise men would turn in their bed at how their Christian socialist reforms have being perverted.

As opposed to a emergency health policy the government has only heard from those supporting oligarchs seeking supreme market monopolies and right to foster product on the populace (continuously thanks to the CPTPP ISSD clauses) when there are genuine issues concerning their product so called farce of safety process posing as science and independent think tank.

Meanwhile a study, published after lockdown were introduced, found that from March 2020 through early January 2021—before vaccination was widespread, and before the Delta variant had arrived—the proportion of patients with mild or asymptomatic disease was 36 percent. From mid-January through the end of June 2021, however, that number rose to 48 percent. In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.

This is (to be clear) just one study, used as example only, but it gets to the question of just how reliable are the stats we keep getting bashed over the head as the Government claims the scale of the emergency is why the government needs to suspend our human rights regarding body integrity. Fair enough maybe the state role is valid but the point is for the government to make this claim they need to demonstrate transparency of who gave them their advice, what was their qualifications, what were there conflict (if any) of interest. The burden of proof lies on the state not the government and when asked to provide such proof it avoided the question saying but has to admit their is no data to make this evaluation (it important to note the answer comes from the Ministry of Health who answered the OIA (though in fact he OIA was also presented to the Prime Minister Office, and the Attorney Generals Office).

Though we then have to add the answer we got from the Crown Office who also chose to answer my OIA (using yet another methodology as to how they choose to answer questions) so pay attention becuase yes it does get confusing.

While support is NOT Evidence.

For that to be the case those academic must demonstrate they have access to all the data concerning what in the vaccine and what scientific evidence has being provided to back that claim up. So that the cure does not pose an additional or greater threat regarding the alleged scale of the threat. On the issue of what scientific evidence the Attorney General received before implementing government policy I filed an Official Information request in early October the results sent to me three months later from the **** are below.

Response to your request for official information
Thank you for your request under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) on 28 October

Please find a response to each part of your request below:

1. I would like to know what “scientific support for the vaccine” was given to the Attorney
   General and what evidence Medsafe examined (the basis for their scientific support to the
   Attorney General) as the basis for that support.

2. What long term health studies were given/cited in relation to known long term impact or
possible generational reduction in health and immunity were offered?

3. What input was provided in any form by Pfizer or any other vaccine manufacturer in
relation to the conclusion medsafe reached when giving this scientific support?

4. How exactly is scientific support defined and how does this differ from the Attorney
General and Ministry of Health definition of evidence or proof?

5. What Conflict of Interest were declared if any by Med Safe when giving this “support”
the AG?

The reply is as follows and it breath taking in its meaning:

The Ministry of Health (the Ministry) does not provide health advice to the Attorney-General. As such, these parts of your request are refused under section under 18(g) of the Act as the information is not held by the Ministry and there are no grounds for believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act. For information on the responsibilities and functions of the Attorney-General, you may refer to the Cabinet Manual:

IN OTHER WORDS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TOOK NO SCIENTIFIC ADVICE FROM ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY as the Attorney General considered it legislative response to the emergency. Instead it received “support” from unnamed academics (will get into that shortly but suffice to say chaired by the OUSA Alumni based academia) whose relationship with the government and Labour Party the Ministry of Health, the Attorney General Office, the Prime Minister Office, and “other agencies” refuse to declare or illuminate when asked. Does that sound democratic to you??

My OIA continues;

17. Was scientific advice covering suspension of principal law based on any epidemiology
    studies and which ones? According to Med Safe provisional approval was included in the Medicines Act so people in New Zealand can get early access to medicines if it’s to meet an urgent clinical need. It allows a vaccine to be used with conditions in place. This restricts how the vaccine is used by health professionals depending on the supporting data available at the time. We expect most vaccines will be given provisional approval because data to support the longer-term safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is not yet available.
18. How does suspending principal of law in relation to right of dignity on the basic
    “longer-term safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is not yet available” balance with
    the robust need to only suspend principal of law only 1) under a proven emergency 2) where it can be shown the measure will not or my not cause and even bigger threat upon which burden of actual proof (as opposed to support) is required by the state not the citizen?
    
    To these the crown have replied these parts of your request are not made with due particularity as required by section 12 of the Act*1. As such, these parts are refused under section 18(g) as the information requested is not held by the Ministry and there are no grounds for believing it is held by another agency subject to the Act.

So again the Attorney General never in fact considered these issues when establishing policy – well no that is not the government position but will address the crown reply shortly.

19. In short what scientific support was given and what do constitute as evidence on the basis the burden of proof for suspension of the Principle of law lies with the state not its
    citizens?
20. Suspension of principal of law must be shown not to do greater harm than the threat
    they seek to prevent on this basis. What other advice on that basis rather than scientific
    “support” did the attorney general obtain?
21. In light there has never been peer reviewed papers on the long term/generational
    implication of any vaccine, how does the AG balance this factor against public safety and
    right of choice.
    
    The answer (cough) we get for that is a s follows; When orders have been made to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, Bill of Rights considerations are taken into account. Namely, this is a justifiable limitation under the Bill of Rights. Advice from Health legal and/or Crown Law is sought and provided to Ministers.

That odd because in question 19 were told in the same OIA “The Ministry of Health (the Ministry) does not provide health advice to the Attorney-General..

Will which is it?

They were advised, in which case the answer to my questions 1-5. 17, 22. 23 are out right lies and need to be answered.

Or they are not in which case 19-21 are the lie.

Either way it has to be one or the other as the natural laws of justice (and plain dam common) sense dictates it cant be both when the answers given contradict each other.

In question 9 of my OIA I asked “Are any ingredient covered by confidentiality or indemnity clause”? The reply is “the New Zealand Government has granted Pfizer indemnity from any claims that may arise. From use of their COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATY). It is important to note, it is not unexpected for pharmaceutical companies to seek indemnities from governments in circumstances where clinical trials are restricted, or where a purchase agreement is concluded before full trials are completed”.

In the context of the natural course of justice, which requires decision based on balance it also important to note that while its might be normal it does not make it right especially in light that Pfizer has an well document history of having a horrendous credibility record.

In 2014 American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together “Pfizer”)agreed to pay $2.3 billion. This was the the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products. Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs Wednesday, September 2, 2009 Updated September 15, 2014.

Much of the vaccine has being rubber stamped and given exemptions by the US Food & Drug Agency at the same time the trail of Elizabeth Holmes the CEO and founder and chief executive of Theranos, a now-defunct health technology company makes clear their are serious flaws in the US system which rubber stamped Holmes seriously flawed products. And it did so largely because her board of directors and supporters reads like a whose who of the most powerful people in Washington and included Donald Trump who wished to make Holmes the head of the FDA. It does not take long to find numerous examples which demonstrate granting indemnity to Pfizer on the base the FDA had given it the green light was not only not prudent by open the Attorney General up to the charge of being derelict in his duty to due diligence prior to approving or recommending such indemnity be approved.
,
Further COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer Pfizer can be documented as hiding behind a veil of secrecy to profiteer during the “worst public health crisis” in over 100 years.

Key points:

• The company is able to change its vaccine delivery schedule (without penalty)
• Brazil can’t accept COVID vaccine donations from other nations, without Pfizer’s consent
• Pfizer raised the annual sales forecast for its COVID-19 vaccines to $US33.5b (up 29 per cent)

That was the key criticism made by Public Citizen, a consumer rights group, which published a report containing leaked Pfizer contracts with the United States, United Kingdom, European Commission, Albania, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic and Peru. If there was a dispute, it would be not be decided by a court (a public forum), according to some of the contracts. Instead, they stated, any disagreements would be resolved through private arbitration under New York law.

This alone runs contrary to Article 29 of New Zealand’s current legislation and the Treaty of Waitangi. And that the TPPA laws breach both Common Wealth Law and UN Declaration of Indigenous Right (just to have a bob each way) has a legal precedent. Namely it was challenged successfully by the Fist Nation People of Canada in 2017, on the grounds that under those term the Canadian Government, A Commonwealth nation based on Westminster law just like New Zealand, did not have the right to enter into such agreements with out consulting the first nation people on issue which may subjugate them under Canadian and Commonwealth Law.

Emergency powers if we choose to accept government claims to supreme power the principals of justice dictate also need to be matched with more not less accountability and transparency. The OIA demonstrate another example where due process is simply not being followed.

Question 15 appears to have simply ignored: “Are there any plans to review this retrospectively under proposed amendment to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 currently before the house. Has this review considered or altered following the finding in US Senate that Covid Virus may have originated from laboratory involved in gain of function which in this context is defined as genetically grafted spike proteins — the viral keys that grant access to mammalian cells — from eight different, naturally occurring coronaviruses onto another coronavirus from the wild, called WIV1. — the widely expressed ACE2 receptor — that is used by SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2

What are the defined limits and expiry dates of current legislation, orders, mandates that currently provide suspension to the values and principles that are regarded as fundamentally important to our legal system?

As section 38I is already in the HSNO Act, there is no need for any retrospective legislation. Please note that the current HSNO Amendment Act currently before Parliament only applies to the Hazardous Substances provisions of the HSNO Act.

HSNO Act 38 (1) Determination of applications to import or release

(1) If an application made under section 34 is not granted under section 35 or any other section, the Authority may, in its discretion,—

(a)

approve the application if—

(i)

the organism meets the minimum standards set out in section 36; and

(ii)

after taking into account all the effects of the organism, the effects of any inseparable organism and the matters in section 37, the positive effects of the organism outweigh the adverse effects of the organism and any inseparable organism; or

(b)

decline the application if—

(i)

the organism fails to meet the said minimum standards; or

(ii)

after taking into account all the effects of the organism, the effects of any inseparable organism, and the matters in section 37, the adverse effects of the organism and any inseparable organism outweigh the positive effects; or

(iii)

insufficient information is available to enable the Authority to assess the adverse effects of the organism.

34Application for approval to import or release

(1) Every person intending— (a) to import for release; or (b) to release from containment—

any new organism shall, before importation or release, apply, under this section or under section 38A, to the Authority for approval to import or release.

Wait a second if you read back up the document you will see Dr Tim of the EPA New Organism ( who Dr Christopher Hill General Manager, Hazardous Substances and New Organisms had answer my question regarding what exactly is the Pfizer ‘vaccine’) just told us it was not an organism so again which is it because you cant have it both ways.

That is not a minor point.

WHO who has being major NGO influencing global policy to Covid has itself being subject to gross conflicts of interest and being subject to sever corporate lobbying. The number one allegation being WHO relation to the same pro TPPA US Corporations who have helped bastardised the UN SDG climate change response in way that further US interest and enriches US Corporations by helping them establish global monopolies.

Q16. Do Pfizer contracts with New Zealand contain any provision to not promote or endorse alternative medicine even in the event they are shown to be more effective or pose less risk?

No. The Pfizer contract does not contain such clauses.

MY OIA ends “The government is acting consistently as (but as these answers show they are not) and in compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Human Rights Act 1993. Human rights matters are considered as part of the making of legal instruments as part of the COVID-19 response, and section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides that the rights can be subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. I trust this information fulfils your request.

Not really becuase even if we accept the legitimacy of the Bill of Rights which you cant for reasons I have previously outlines (parliament can not create legal fiction which empower it as this is simply a constitutional no no) their are now know proven side affects, including death, neural damage, and still born in pregnancies – that the vaccine can be proven to contain GMO (to the point the government is now attempting to change the definition of hazardous ) and the vaccine trial are not complete only ‘provisional” and have not being completed and it can be confirmed that yes no long term trials for generational out come it impossible to see with out actual scientific evidence and no government advices (which comes with ensuing accountability). That Attorney General believes this meet the criteria of natural course of justice in reaching a determination of the reasonable limits prescribed bylaw as demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society is ludicrous and it no small point that in Japan that same kind of reasoning would result in resignations and law suits (not necessarily in that order) and it may still happen yet.

Open letter to Annette King, Minister of Health, New Zealand August 2004 BMJ Clinical Research 329(7456):51 DOI:10.1136/bmj.329.7456.51 Source PubMed

The spike protein and the Pfizer vaccine The story of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer and its biotech company partner BioNTech, the vaccine, and its regulatory journey through the EPA. By Dr Tim Strabala, Principal Scientist, New Organisms11 May 2021 (EPA)

The idea the common man is a king of his own quarter acre castle, free to determine his own fate, free to have body integrity, is not the view of Labour today (or Probably the view of Chris Luxton tomorrow) when it concern self determination medical welfare and human rights. Helen and her proxies know best do as your told do as we say not as we do.

David Parker Labour’s Attorney General David Parker — INCONSISTENCY it underscores why the lawyers defending workers on the Bill of Rights are guarantee their clients will fail. It also under scores the subtle SOS the court are sending the public to look else where as with a ‘wink wink say no more furtive glance’ at the 1689 Bill of Rights as it brought up loudly by senior Auckland Law society members in ‘casual’ conversation as they all for the need for “robust” civic support of the courts.

Remember how I keep saying the court want to help us.

This is RNZ this year Dear Parliament, Try again, Sincerely, the Courts “You might not have noticed but New Zealand’s constitution suddenly shifted a little bit six years ago. Parliament is currently figuring out how to adapt to that”. Well that like saying snows a little white.”The Government has since acceded to that assertion of the court’s declarative ability. Andrew Little (the then Minister of Justice) said in Parliament last year:…our senior courts, who have found that they have the right to issue declarations of inconsistency in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And indeed, we recognise that and the nature of the relationship comity between this House and the judiciary—we recognise that. This bill, effectively, recognises that, but it does a very important thing, because for a citizen who is concerned that a piece of legislation has been passed that trades their basic civil and human rights—something that is then found not only to cut across their rights but also not to be justified in a free and democratic society—merely getting a declaration is not enough. There must be a response”. [63]

And this is most certainly the case when rights are suspend in the interest of national emergency which must also have a time limit and come with enhanced transparency equal to the rights that a citizen is expected to forfeit,

Janet McLean,Arie Rosen,Nicole Roughan note of emergency powers “Much contemporary media and academic attention focused upon ‘the legality of lockdown’, and the question of whether the government, at various stages of their response, acted within formal limits set out in legislation (e.g. Geddis and Geiringer 2020; Knight and McLay 2020; Rishworth 2020).That reveals only part of the story. We will argue that the pandemic emergency demonstrates the importance of legal constraints upon governmental action, found not only in adherence to legal rules, but also in practices and principles of legality (Editors note which address the issue of the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law)).

The trio continue “public power must be authorised by legal rules, but also require that those rules must be consistent with the protection of persons and the restriction of power. Not just any rules will do, and even good rules must still be applied and understood in light of broader institutional arrangements and practices that use law as a constraint on public power. This is why any fixation with authorisation alone is misleading and may even be harmful. Enactment of rules that accord too much discretionary power to the executive might satisfy those who wish to see formal authorisation for each governmental action, but would still be an affront to the principles of legality.

That is if they don’t address the spirit in which that law was permitted and meant to safe guard people rights its not cricket.

The first lies in the propensity of governments to observe rule-governed limits to their powers.

The second lies in the broader practices and principles of legality, beyond rule-following, which give effect to principles of legality in order to limit law’s coercive impact on the lives of persons subject to the law.

The term ‘principle of legality’ has most commonly been associated with one particular common law interpretive principle — the presumption that Parliament does not intend to interfere with fundamental common law rights, freedoms and immunities. … The principle of legality is concerned with actual legislative intention“.

The trio concludes;

“According to the view of the High Court in Borrowdale, the New Zealand government acted beyond its rule-prescribed competences for the first nine days of the first lockdown.

It is significant, though, that at no point did the government invoke powers that would have been hostile to the principles of legality.

The Court concluded that, reasonably interpreted, the statements conveyed that New Zealanders were required—backed by the threat of enforcement—to stay at home and in their
“bubbles” when that was not, in fact, the legal position. So until Order 2 came into effect (on
3 April) those restrictions were not prescribed by law and, accordingly, an unlawful limit on the
relevant NZBORA rights and freedoms. But the Court rejected the contention that the
requirements involved a “suspension” of laws contrary to s 1 BOR 1688 or that the statements
were of the kind found to be unlawful in Fitzgerald v Muldoon. Although rights were limited by the requirements, the statements did not purport to “suspend” or stop the operation of any law. And by contrast with Fitzgerald, the Executive did in fact have the power to impose the
restrictions, it merely omitted to exercise that power, until 3 April. After Order 2 came into
effect on that day, the omission was corrected. I would question whether that verdict was in fact subject to an appeal on two grounds with out any disrespect to Justice Stephen Kos whose not only is acknowledged expert on Muldoon VS Fitzgerald but has a rating of 4 out 63 from the very critical Vince Siemer so high prise indeed).

Siemer, a one man watchdog on his own right, however is not without zero criticism of Kos who is not painted as hero by Siemer but neither is he painted as a villain which almost a compliment by Siemer usual standards “it disingenuous for Kos J then to complain the have-nots he alleges account for 40% of the judicial reviews in New Zealand are those he now wishes to assist?   His record does not support his claims and his ‘new ideas’ appear a dubious ploy when you look at this record.” Siemer also note of “Kos Pertinently, judicial review is a ‘guaranteed’ right under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; an Act which states at section 6 is to be preferred in interpretation relative to other legal statutes.  As Judge, Kos seldom refers to this seminal legislation on rights issues and rarely accepts its guarantees”

Siemer see this as a bad thing I think Kos however did us a favour by not empowering BORA and he may even have given the “have nots” a subtle green green traffic light and let the prosecution own goaled it self. For as Jenni Mcmannus (who did sterling work during the Wine Box Inquiry) one of the true (and few) real 00’s licensed to tell pit balls of the 4th Estate notes;

“In the other corner is Victoria Casey QC for the Crown. She is arguing that despite prescriptive language from both the Prime Minister and the director-general, and threats from then-Police Commissioner Mike Bush that people would be arrested for lockdown breaches and the military was “standing by”, the government relied on voluntary compliance to make the lockdown work. In particular, the Prime Minister’s statements were “a strong ask” or “advice” rather than legal requirements”, Casey said.

The prosecution defence was and is oh no we would never enforce those mandates we were just suggesting strongly – it actually an admission from the state that as hobnailed spiked and steel cap as their foot wear was they were in reality a one legged man in an ass kicking competition – Show us your badge gold on first inspection and plastic on closer inspection.

Response to Official Information Act Request 

Our Ref: OIA3533/1 

1. We are writing further to your request, made under the Official Information  Act 1982 (OIA) on 28 October 2021 for information relating to the following: 

1.1 “What are the defined limits and expiry dates of current legislation, orders,  mandates that currently provide suspension to the values and principles that  

are regarded as fundamentally important to our legal system? 

1.2 Have these being update as required by law. 

1.3 These values and principles (of law) can be expressed at differing levels of  abstraction. Fundamentally, they concern human dignity and liberty but  

these terms embrace a broader set of rights and freedoms that include: the  

right not to be deprived of life; 24 physical integrity of one’s body, including  

freedom from medical treatment or scientific experimentation without  

consent; freedom from torture, or cruel, degrading, or disproportionately  

severe treatment or punishment; freedom from discrimination based on  

immutable characteristics; physical liberty, in the sense of freedom from  

arbitrary arrest or restraint; freedom of conscience, religion, expression,  

association, assembly, and movement; liberty, in the sense of freedom to  

make fundamental personal choices as to how one lives one’s life; and  

procedural fairness, often referred to as natural justice. 

1.4 Was scientific advice covering suspension of principal law based on any  epidemiology studies and which ones? 

1.5 Did the Imperial College have any contribution relating to scientific support  given to the Attorney General concerning suspension of principle of law  

under an emergency. 

1.6 In short what scientific support was given and what do constitute as  evidence on the basis the burden of proof for suspension of the Principle of  

law lies with the state, not its citizens. 

1.7 Suspension of principal of law must be shown not to do greater harm than  the threat they seek to prevent on this basis. What other advice on that  

basis rather than scientific “support” did the attorney general obtain?

Level 3 Justice Centre 19 Aitken Street PO Box 2858 DX SP20208 Wellington 6140 New Zealand 

Ph: +64 4 472 1719 

http://www.crownlaw.govt.nz 

6650783_2 

2  

1.8 In light there has never been peer reviewed papers on the long term/  generational implication of any vaccine, how does the AG balance this factor against public safety and right of choice. 

1.9 According to Med Safe “Provisional approval was included in the  Medicines Act so people in New Zealand can get early access to medicines if  it’s to meet an urgent clinical need. It allows a vaccine to be used with  conditions in place. This restricts how the vaccine is used by health  professionals depending on the supporting data available at the time.  We expect most vaccines will be given provisional approval because data to  support the longer-term safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines is not yet  available”.  

2. We transferred parts of your request to the Ministry of Health and Environmental Protection Authority on 12 November 2021. We extended the timeframe of our response to your request by 20 working days to 23 December 2021 on 25 November 2021. 

Suspension of the principle of law 

3. In your requests at [1.1], [1.3], [1.4], [1.6], and [1.7], you refer to the “suspension of the principle of law” or the “suspension of principal law”. It is unclear what these phrases refer to. However, we note that at no time during the pandemic has the rule of law or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 been suspended. 

Limits and expiry dates of current legislation, orders and notices 

4. In relation to your request at [1.1], we repeat that there has been no “suspension to the values and principles that are regarded as fundamentally important to our legal system”. Notwithstanding the above, a current list of the legislation, orders and notices relevant to New Zealand’s response to COVID-19 can be found at http://www.pco.govt.nz/covid-19-legislation#acts. Relevant expiry dates of the key  

instruments are as follows: 

Primary legislation 

4.1 The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed on the expiry of 90 days after the commencement date or the date of the most recent resolution, or any other period specified by a resolution of the  House of Representatives, if no resolution is passed to continue the Act by  the House of Representatives within that period (see section 3).  

4.2 The COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020 is repealed on  8 July 2023 (see section 3).  

4.3 Sections 10, 13, 26, 30, 41, and 42 of the COVID-19 Response  (Requirements for Entities – Modifications and Exemptions) Act 2020 are  repealed on 1 April 2021. Sections 10A, 13A, 26A, 30A, 42A, and 42B of that Act are repealed on 1 November 2022. The rest of that Act is repealed on  the close of 30 September 2023. 

4.4 The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Specified Work Vaccinations)  Order 2021 must be approved by a resolution of the  House of Representatives before the end of the relevant period in section 16(2) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. If that does  not happen, the order is revoked at the end of that period. 

4.5 The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccination Assessment Tool)  Regulations 2021 are revoked on the date on which the COVID-19 Public  Health Response Act 2020 is repealed. 

4.6 The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment  Order (No 5) 2021 must be approved by a resolution of the  House of Representatives before the end of the relevant period in  section 16(2) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. If that does  not happen, the order is revoked at the end of that period. 

4.7 The COVID-19 Public Health response (Air Border, Isolation and Quarantine,  and Required Testing) Amendment Order must be approved by a resolution  of the House of Representatives before the end of the relevant period in  section 16(2) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. If that does  not happen, the order is revoked at the end of that period. 

4.8 The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border and Isolation and  Quarantine) Amendment Order 2021 must be approved by a resolution of  the House of Representatives before the end of the relevant period in  section 16(2) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. If that does  not happen, the order is revoked at the end of that period. 

4.9 The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border and Isolation and  Quarantine) Amendment Order 2020 must be approved by a resolution of  the House of Representatives before the end of the relevant period in  section 16(2) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. If that does  not happen, the order is revoked at the end of that period. 

4.10 The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order  2020 must be approved by a resolution of the House of Representatives  before the end of the relevant period in section 16(2) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. If that does not happen, the  order is revoked at the end of that period. 

4.11 The COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order  (No 2) 2020 must be approved by a resolution of the House of  Representatives before the end of the relevant period in section 16(2) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. If that does not happen, the  order is revoked at the end of that period. 

Epidemic Preparedness Notice and Immediate Modification Orders 

4.12 The Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 must be renewed every  three months to remain in force. The current Epidemic Preparedness  (COVID-19) Notice 2020 Renewal Notice (No 4) 2021 came into force on 6650783_2 4 18 December 2021, and as a result the principal notice will not now expire  until 18 March 2022 (unless it is again renewed within that period). 

4.13 The ability to accept applications made outside the specified time under the  Epidemic Preparedness (Customs and Excise Act 2018 – Appeals) Immediate Modification Order 2020 will cease 20 working days after the  Epidemic Notice expires or is revoked. 

4.14 The Epidemic Preparedness (Local Government Act 2002) Immediate Modification Order 2020 is revoked when the Epidemic Preparedness  (COVID-19) Notice 2020 expires or is revoked. 

4.15 The Epidemic Preparedness (Employment Relations Act 2000 – Collective  Bargaining) Immediate Modification Order 2020 is revoked 3 months after  the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 expires or is revoked. 

4.16 The Epidemic Preparedness (Oaths and Declarations Act 1957) Immediate Modification Order 2020 is revoked when the Epidemic Preparedness  (COVID-19) Notice 2020 expires or is revoked. 

4.17 The Epidemic Preparedness (Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Act 1988 – Enduring Powers of Attorney) Immediate Modification Order  2020 is revoked when the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020  expires or is revoked. 

4.18 The Epidemic Preparedness (Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 – Licence Application Inquiries) Immediate Modification Order 2020 is revoked  30 days after the date on which the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19)  Notice 2020 expires or is revoked. 

4.19 The Epidemic Preparedness (Wills Act 2007 – Signing and Witnessing of  Wills) Immediate Modification Order 2020 is revoked when the  Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 expires or is revoked. 

5. In relation to your request at [1.2], it is unclear what you are referring to when you  request information relating to the update of these instruments. Please clarify what  laws or measures are required by law to be updated, so that we may provide any  relevant information about that process. 

Evidence behind decision-making 

6. In relation to your requests at [1.4] and [1.5], we again reiterate that there has been  no “suspension of principal law”. Accordingly, we refuse these requests under section 18(e) as the document alleged to contain the information requested does  not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found. 

7. We do note, however, that Imperial College modelling, along with various other  modelling, data, and other evidence, was relied on by the Ministry of Health when it  provided advice at the outset of the pandemic in March 2020. 

Requests regarding the Attorney-General 

8. In relation to your requests at [1.7] and [1.8] we again reiterate that there has been  no “suspension of principal of law”. Further, it is unclear what decision or action by 6650783_25 the Attorney-General is referred to that would have required “other advice”.  Accordingly, we refuse this request under section 18(e) as the document alleged to  contain the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to  locate it, cannot be found. We suggest you identify a particular decision or action by  the Attorney-General in relation to which you seek information for any potential  further request. 

General statements 

9. In relation to your statements at [1.3] and [1.9], there is no request for information,  and an agency is not required under the OIA to respond to or provide comments on  general statements. 

10. You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this  decision in accordance with section 28(3) of the OIA. Information about how to  make a complaint is available at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or Freephone  0800 802 602. 

Nāku noa, nā  Crown Law 

Mark Bryant 

Crown Counsel

Principal of law

However while his ruling concerning executive powers is in the bowling alley of legal experts I feel as a constitutionalist at less three point came out of that ruling and need further public debate scrutiny and public awareness;

The Executive gave it elf those powers in an illegal manner via Lord Cooke 1986 determination over the debate over whether the citizens hold sovereignty over the Government or vice versa. The latter is the situation in Britain and what was allegedly handed down to New Zealand. A number of republics within the Commonwealth, such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa, have constitutions proclaimed or conceived to be derived directly from the authority of the people…No doubt techniques are available, indeed more readily in New Zealand than in federations such as Australia and Canada, whereby New Zealand could take for herself a somewhat similar republican status.’ Interestingly, despite claims from some New Zealand lawyers that our independence from Britain did not require any break in legal continuity requiring public affirmation, Cooke appears to recognise that such changes do require express ratification. ‘Subject to local adaptation and development, it seems likely that the common law of England would still be seen as the lineal ancestor of our private law.’

3. The Attorney General, a former pharmaceutical executive, failure to follow the principles of law and the principle of natural justice in establishing those executive orders. The failure can be labelled

Further New Zealand Law Society lawyer Tim Stephens noted that the government “did, or appeared to, prescribe extant legal obligations when they weren’t extant…The government gave the impression, or made statements, that were confusing or misdescribed the legal position…Most people were led to believe the law obliged them to behave in a particular way when that wasn’t in fact the case.”

This now also appear to be the case of the traffic light and vaccine mandates rushed through under emergency which is now becoming a go to method for the government to operate under (yet another breach of the principality of natural justice) and is being criticised by Amnesty International, The Law Society, the opposition,

Nevertheless, Stephens said: “The rule of law could be vindicated in the court’s reasons for judgment rather than a declaration about whether the statements misdescribed the rights or obligations.”

A declaration could “give rise to very complex questions in terms of the consequential position”, Stephens said. “Even if a declaration were ordered (which it was not), civil society relied on the validity of those orders. A lot of conduct occurred as a consequence of them and if they were found to be unlawful in some sense …. there are a number of potential unintended consequences that could flow from that.”

Examples might be leases where rent relief might be claimed and prosecutions for breaches of a lockdown that might now be deemed unlawful. In other words it too big too fail. he crown maintained if errors of legality had been found, it would be sufficient for the rule of law if these were simply acknowledged by the court. “What the court does here – and, very importantly, how it fulfils its function – it should not do anything to jeopardise the effectiveness of the community response if we go up the alert levels again,” Casey said. “The lawfulness of what happened is in front of the court but how you go about it is going to be important and significant for the community, as reflected by the public interest in this case.”

McManus concludes “Essentially, Borrowdale is arguing his case has parallels with another significant constitutional law case, Fitzgerald v Muldoon. Just after his election in 1975, then Prime Minister Rob Muldoon effectively dismantled New Zealand’s national superannuation scheme by issuing a press release removing compulsory employee contributions. Fitzgerald, a public servant, filed for judicial review, citing breaches of the 1688 Bill of Rights. Wild CJ found the Prime Minister’s public announcement was unlawful”.

So if nothing else I am not the only one who reached this conclusion and like wise as such what run true of the locks down ruling runs true of the AG ruling vs similar Covid Health related mandates. That is if they don’t address the spirit in which that law was permitted and meant to safe guard people rights its not cricket. Which for the judges sake I high light is different in one major aspect

1. The issue of not wanting society to collapse ifs a fallacious argument if we note the manner in which vaccination has being handled in Japan (and in fact most of the western nation where vaccine monopoly is not the norm).

Japan being a nation familiar with the lasting impact of technology unleashed on the populace with little care for long term consequences and whose judiciary as a result of public sensitivity on such factors are studiously aware their International obligations to human rights and have dealt with the issue by ensuring the populace has a choice of more than one vaccine, alerted the public (thus insuring the populace consent is informed consent) to the reality that yes their are side affects including lost of natural immune function (which since Borrowdale ruling has become more apparent not less).

Which is no small point as we face even more aggressive variants including those who are now merging as vaccine resistance. In addition to offering preventative medicine options to populace not by eliminating risk but by reducing it which has also worked will in no small part due to Japan having a culture with high hygiene nutritional standards which with education policy can be replicated here starting perhaps with our national teams, such as Team Emirates, not including as their sponsor fast food, soft drink and alcohol companies.

Perhaps better living could also be a feature of some of that money our government has paid out to American dominated media as Covid relief conditional to covering issue they think the public need to hear about. The government commercial coercion of national media via such funding and (threat of job cuts) being yet another deviation from natural justice that reinforces picture of centralisation of power and abuse of office. Just saying your honours.

Ditto your honours what happens to the unvaxed when they go to court or end up in jail on one level under the government system it not mandatory and yet employer risk work and safety if they expose vaccinated employees to unvax.

One the other declining people just goes against habeus corpus. Has the government established infrastructure for the unvax to appear in court via online technology (such as zoom) to insure every one rights (not just some people rights) are protected and if not it being disingenuous as maintain this about ensuring safety and not simply enforcing compliance as it continues a pattern aggressive centralisation of power in the hand hands of the executive alone. And how can the crown enforce such mandates if they ae only advice as the prosecutor maintains.

“The principles of continued governance through general, public, clear, and prospective rules, reasoned decision-making, and subjection to supervision from the courts, have not been openly challenged (thus far), and have been largely upheld by the ordinary operation of legal institutions... If law presents and represents a shared standard that governs behaviour evenly, it may enable us to act together on the reasons that apply to us separately”.

And yet the hash that is the badly written traffic light legislation show the government want to be the one sole source of power which as Cooke point out its not even if the courts refuse to address the elephant in the room for the reasons that the state to big to fail. And yet the error of 86/2004 is not the publics doing and the court in failing to address this are siding with the haves while failing to enforce the rule of law which Muldoon VS Fitzgerald demonstrate the court has a duty to do. And as explained, with numerous example above, it not like that their are not work arounds by which the court and state can assure public safety while also following their obligations to both common wealth and tikanaga as laid out in article of the Treaty of Waitangi and the contract between Westminster and the 954 Maori Hapu.

THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA19 August 2020
MEDIA RELEASE – EMBARGOED UNTIL 4.00 PM TODAY ANDREW BORROWDALE V DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 2090 PRESS SUMMARY

NEW ZEALAND LEGAL NEWS Raise Your Hand To This Judge – With Caution by Vince Siemer|Published May 27, 2016

The last issue I wish to address is one of parliamentary abuse of power and using crisis to quietly introduce legislation that would permit the state to continue it use of emergency powers and continue it subversion of New Zealand democratic process.

In ** acinda Adern stated “We issue declarations sparingly. The reason we have done this today is that those cases where we do issue declarations are often where there are threats to life, threats to property, or civil defence emergencies. If we do not respond to climate change, we will continue to have those emergencies on our shore. I do want to acknowledge, as I conclude, the Minister of Climate Change and the Green Party, endless advocates for activity in this space that we will continue to work in partnership with. But I encourage every member of this House to take the issue of climate change with the utter seriousness that it deserves. Vote in favour of this declaration today. Be on the right side of history. Be part of the solution we must collectively deliver for the next generation”.

The legislation was introduced (as was the draconian Public Sector Bill and as the Digital pas port legislation can be expect to be slipped in the coming weeks) in the last week of Parliament the traditional time that controversial legislation gets introduced at a time of the year when the media i focused on the silly season and was due to go on holiday. It was introduced while the nation was distracted by the seriousness of the Covid crisis and it was introduced with little publicity (for which submissions can be made) ,discussion or explanation of what emergency legislation permit the parliament to do. It came before the nation had time to absorb and observe what governments can do with emergency powers but it does follow on from he Christchurch earthquake experience where National just like Labour also used crisis to ram through questionable legislation.

So far the idea that New Zealand government can be relied on not to abuse power, to pursue without favour or prejudice the principle of natural justice, to follow the spirit of the law (and not just the letter) of not taking short cuts has proved since 1986 to be a very flawed assumption not backed up by the extensive empirical data which shows the contrary is true.