Category Archives: NZ Government

No Govt minister would meet with a Waikato Regional Councillor & a Nelson Lawyer this week to accept an incident register on 1080 – but then the NZ Govt is MAKING 1080

There have been thousands of cases of poisoned farm animals, non-targeted wildlife, pets, and people following 1080 poison and brodifacoum aerial operations across New Zealand.

Not surprisingly, those involved with the aerial poisoning drops – our government, the Department of Conservation, TB Free, regional councils … and ironically, those that sign the drops off – the district health boards – have never compiled a register of the incidents that have taken place over the years.

So some intellects from around the country decided to put together some of the known poisoning cases, including people that have been crying out to be heard for so long.

In the following video clip lawyer Sue Grey and Waikato Regional Councillor for Taupo, Kathy White, explain how they attempted to present the poisoning register to members of parliament (on a typically windy day) …

For information on the Govt owned Whanganui 1080 factory go here.



$180k of taxpayer money used to spy on Kiwis after Christchurch earthquakes

So it’s now a crime to go to bat for your insurance claim? To insure your home & actually expect to be paid out? Interesting given the revelations we have now of the goings on behind the quake in the first instance. Kiwi land is fast becoming a Police state. With this carry on it’s looking more and more like communist Russia.

This article is from  and includes a video

A Newshub investigation has found Christchurch earthquake victims trying to settle insurance claims with the Government were spied on by private investigators, in operations paid for by the taxpayer.

The investigation today forced the Government to act, opening an inquiry into its insurance company, Southern Response.

The operation, running from February 2014 to April 2017, cost $177,349 of taxpayers’ money. It’s not known how many people were spied on, but hundreds of people were involved in protests following the Christchurch quakes.

Cam Preston, a father, chartered accountant, and victim of the Christchurch earthquake, was also deemed a “threat” who needed to be monitored.

Mr Preston was one of the main targets of an operation set up by Southern Response using “protection agency” Thompson and Clark Investigations.

The security firm’s ‘security risk management proposal’ warns of “the threat of a sustained, directed campaign by issue-motivated groups and individuals of either legal or illegal nature.”

It says it provides what’s called “an on-going real-time situational awareness”.

“This approach has proved the best rewards for our clients and allowed them to keep a ‘rod in the water’.”



State quake insurer’s use of security contractor investigated

Why Silicon Valley billionaires are prepping for the apocalypse in New Zealand


How an extreme libertarian tract predicting the collapse of liberal democracies – written by Jacob Rees-Mogg’s father – inspired the likes of Peter Thiel to buy up property across the Pacific. 


If you’re interested in the end of the world, you’re interested in New Zealand. If you’re interested in how our current cultural anxieties – climate catastrophe, decline of transatlantic political orders, resurgent nuclear terror – manifest themselves in apocalyptic visions, you’re interested in the place occupied by this distant archipelago of apparent peace and stability against the roiling unease of the day.

If you’re interested in the end of the world, you would have been interested, soon after Donald Trump’s election as US president, to read a New York Times headline stating that Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist who co-founded PayPal and was an early investor in Facebook, considered New Zealand to be “the Future”. Because if you are in any serious way concerned about the future, you’re also concerned about Thiel, a canary in capitalism’s coal mine who also happens to have profited lavishly from his stake in the mining concern itself.


Photo: Lake Wanaka, NZ – Pixabay

Clyde Graf interviews Graeme Sturgeon on the assault case the Court dismissed

Clyde Graf is with Carol Sawyer and Kathy White.


The Crown vs Graeme Sturgeon – 1080 Poison Assault – “Charges Dismissed” … here’s the post-decision video interview …


So very, very wrong what these good people were put through.

Graeme Sturgeon is interviewed here by Clyde and Steve Graf. Frankly speaking, I feel privileged to know such amazing people.

Yet despite what Graeme and Julie have been through, as Graeme says here they will not give up the fight to save their water and wildlife.

Other heroes to me are hardworking and generous-spirited John and Denise Allen, who organised a campsite on the outskirts of Thames and set up to cater for however many people turned up – up to 300 people if necessary.

Fighting 1080 poison is fighting the NZ government. There is no environmental battle harder than that.

So much of the time it feels impossible, futile – insane even – to be trying to stop this taxpayer-funded, propagandised industry, where helicopter companies like EPRO and HeliOtago make many tens of millions every year; where senior management in DoC and OSPRI are on salaries they could never hope to replicate, even closely, in the private sector; where trucking firms like those owned by Trojan Holdings ( Northern Southland Transport, Upper Clutha Transport, Cromwell Transport ), transport all the 1080 required in the lower South Island all the way from Whanganui in the North Island to points south; where the factory that manufactures all the 1080 baits in NZ, Animal Control Products, ( trading as Orillion ), in Whanganui,, has two nominal directors – the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture – and has a chairman, Terry Murdoch, who is an owner of Christchurch Helicopters Ltd – which company has a contract with DoC re orange-fronted parakeet translocation and has Dept of Conservation written on their helicopters ! Oh, and let us not forget one of the owners of Christchurch Helicopters is national All Black hero Richie McCaw…. Carol Sawyer

Photo: screen shot from TV Wild’s interview

For previous articles about the assault on Graeme Sturgeon go to this link or go to 1080 at categories at the left of news page.

Sign the TPPA-11 Petition – Aotearoa is STILL not for sale

We request the House of Representatives to urge the Government to reject the resurrected Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

We request the House of Representatives to urge the Government to reject the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership, and that the House revise the Standing Orders of the Parliament to ensure the process for negotiating and signing trade and investment agreements is more democratic, independently informed, and regularly feeds information back to the Parliament and the people.


What you need to know about the ‘new’ & still secret TPPA that isn’t new & doesn’t bode well for Maori, or anybody else really except of course the corporations

Ah… this is good for you but we can’t tell you how good because it’s all been negotiated in secret and we aren’t allowed to tell you what it says but trust us Kiwis … it’s good for you … Tui anyone?



Posted by Jenese James

This is a trade deal NZ should NOT SIGN – The TPPA is a corporate passport to exploit the natural wealth of a nation by ‘legally’ robbing its citizens and the environment of that natural wealth

I want to point out the reason why so many politicians promise this and that before they get elected but once in power reneg on that promise – its because of the T&C of various trade deals done through membership of various organisations often in secret – to give an example …”…..Trade Minister David Parker says NZ First’s policy of taxing bottled water exports would breach various international agreements because it is discriminatory. But there is a much bigger risk that foreign investors could threaten to bring an ISDS dispute if moves to resolve water claims affect their commercial interests….”

here is another example

“…….The new government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act to restrict foreign purchases of residential housing. They admit that the law would breach the TPPA if it was passed after the agreement came into force….”

Its vital to grasp this because this is the key to understanding how policies are now made via these agreements and why voting really doesn’t make much difference once deals are done and always these deals are not done in public view but behind closed doors in secret as this trade deal reveals it – the secrecy behind it is tantamount to a betrayal of the people because it will allow corporations to steal the wealth of the people of the nation for private profit,

example … “…….The separation of cutting rights from the land was a device used by the Labour government in 1988 to allow corporatisation of the forests and separation of the land from the trees so the forests could be privatised…..”  …. this was the Roger Douglas’ cabinet.

Another example …  “…Labour and NZ First want to restore the right of NZ, and Maori, ownership of the forests. They have to change the foreign investment law before the TPPA comes into force because they can’t do so afterwards…..”…

so when you protest you are protesting against a much bigger force than you realize – politicians’ hands are tied once deals are signed.

Read it all below


This is about the TTPA and Te Tiriti o Waitangi..

Written By Jane Kelsey

The state of play with TPPA

Ø The original Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement was signed by the 12 negotiating parties in Auckland on 4 February 2016, in the face of a massive protest led by tangata whenua.

Ø Japan and NZ completed their domestic processes to ratify (adopt) the original agreement during 2016.

Ø In January 2017 US President Trump withdrew the US’s participation from the TPPA.

Ø The 11 remaining countries met 7 times in 2017 to rescue the TPPA minus the US.

Each country tabled a list of provisions in the TPPA that it wanted removed or suspended.

Apparently, NZ under the National government did table a list of requests, but that remains secret.

The new Labour-NZ First government, supported by Greens, only had input into these negotiations at the very end.

Labour asked other TPPA countries to suspend the right of foreign investors to sue the NZ government in offshore tribunals over new laws and policies (investor-state dispute settlement/ISDS), but it failed.

Labour did not seek to make other changes or even suspend other provisions of concern to Maori.

Ø In December 2017 in Vietnam, the TPPA-11 agreed to suspend 20 items from the original text, pending the US’s re-entry; 4 matters remained to be finalized.

Ø In January 2018 in Tokyo the TPPA 11 announced a new deal, one year to the day from Trump’s withdrawal.

Ø Canada insisted that it needed changes to protect its culture sector. Reports say it also achieved changes on automobiles, although that was not on the list. These were done through side letters that remain secret.

Ø The TPPA-11 will contain the entire old agreement. 22 of the 1000+ original provisions have been suspended, pending US re-entry, but they have not been removed.

Ø The TPPA has been rebranded the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement on Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or TPPA-11) even though the substance is the same as the old TPPA.

Ø They intend to sign the TPPA-11 agreement in Chile on 8 March 2018.

Ø The text of what they agreed remains secret. Japanese officials say the text will not be released until after it has been signed. The National Opposition, which ran the secretive negotiations, wants the text released.

Ø In January 2018 President Trump said he would consider re-entering the TPPA, but the terms would have to be more favourable to the US than the original agreement.

Ø The process for US re-entry will require consensus. Labour says some suspended items may never be re-activated. But the US domestic political processes mean any US re-entry will inevitably require more benefits to the US, not less.

Ø The TPPA-11 will reportedly come into force after 6 of the 11 parties have ratified it by completing their domestic processes. Again, the actual text of this provision has not been released.

The new government and the TPPA

Ø Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens all wrote dissents to the majority select committee report on the TPPA and said they would not support its ratification.

Ø Labour said the economic modelling was flawed and there must be a robust cost-benefit analysis that includes impacts on jobs and on distribution, as well as a health impact assessment. Neither report has been done for the TPPA-11.

Ø Labour now claims the new TPPA-11 meets Labour’s 5 pre-conditions for change, but it does not: it provides market access for exporters (but it has no new economic analysis of net costs and benefits); it protects the Pharmac model for buying medicines (but the provisions are suspended not removed); the Treaty of Waitangi, the sovereign right to regulate and restrictions on foreign ownership of property are all protected (which they are not, see below).

Ø Winston Peters says the TPPA-11 is a very different deal from the one NZ First opposed and they will now support it. That is not true. The ISDS provisions and core protections for foreign investors that NZ First so staunchly opposed remain the same and have not even been suspended.

Ø New Zealand’s ratification of the TPPA-11 requires another round of submissions to the parliamentary select committee on which National has 4 of the 8 members, including the chair and deputy chair.

Ø If legislation is needed to implement the agreement, National has said it will vote with Labour and NZ First. The Greens remain opposed.

Ø So the parliamentary process is a foregone conclusion.


The Treaty of Waitangi Exception

The Treaty of Waitangi exception in the TPPA is a copy of one that was drafted in 2000 for the Singapore free trade agreement (FTA).

The same exception has been rolled over in agreements since then, without any consultation with Māori, even though today’s agreements impose much greater restrictions on what governments can do.

Prime Minister Ardern says NZ ‘has an exemption that says it is always able to legislate and act to protect its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and that can’t be challenged by other nations’. That is not true.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal in the TPPA claim (Wai 2522) said the Treaty exception ‘may not encompass the full extent of the Treaty relationship’ because it only covers Crown actions that give preferences to Māori, not laws or policies that apply generally but are at least partly for Treaty compliance (water, mining, fisheries).

Ø The PM said the Tribunal found the ‘exemption provides protections for the Treaty’. That is also not true. The Tribunal found no breach of Treaty principles because the exception was ‘likely’ to offer a ‘reasonable degree’ of protection for Māori. But it did not accept the Crown’s claim that ‘nothing in the TPPA will prevent the Crown from meeting its Treaty obligations to Māori’.

Ø The Tribunal was not convinced that the exception protects Crown actions from a dispute by a foreign investor, for example on water or mining.

Ø The Wai 2522 claimants made proposals for more effective protection. These have been ignored. There has been no consultation on any stronger protection.

Ø The wording of the exception hasn’t changed in other negotiations since the TPPA. Officials say that they can’t change the wording because they tell other countries they must have this wording because it’s in all NZ’s agreements. New wording would open the text for negotiation.

Ø But New Zealand got additional new wording on UPOV 1991 at the last minute in the TPPA (see below), so it’s not true the Crown can’t demand and win different wording.

Ø Labour seems to be accepting the Crown’s advice and accepting an ‘imperfect’ Treaty protection as a trade-off for other commercial benefits it sees in these deals.

The Waitangi Tribunal claim is ongoing

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal granted urgency to the TPPA (Wai-2522) claim, but limited its scope to whether the wording in the Treaty exception provided effective protection for Māori interests. It didn’t address other parts of the claim (eg water, mining, health).

Ø The Tribunal’s time for preparing its report was cut back because the National government pushed through the legislation to implement the TPPA; once the Bill was introduced the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

Ø The Tribunal found there was a reasonable level of active protection in the Treaty exception, but suggested there should be consultation on better protection, and it kept oversight of the UPOV 1991 issue (below).

Ø The Crown wants the Tribunal process terminated. The claimants point to a lack of good faith consultation over TPPA-11 negotiations since the Tribunal’s report and issues not addressed in the urgent hearing remain.

Ø On 30 January 2018 the Tribunal asked the parties (basically the Crown) to say by mid-February (a) when the text of the new agreement would be available, (b) what its effect would be on the Crown’s engagement with Maori on the Plant Varieties regime and adopting UPOV 1991, (c) what issues in the TPPA claim remain live, and (d) ‘when would be the appropriate time for the Tribunal to commence inquiry into the remaining substantive claims that have been filed with respect of the TPPA?

WAI 262 and the UPOV 1991 convention

Ø The TPPA required NZ to adopt the UPOV 1991 Convention that creates rights to claim intellectual property rights on plant varieties, which Wai 262 report and the Cabinet have recognized is inconsistent with te Tiriti.

Ø Legal arguments from the Wai-2522 claimants showed the Treaty exception would not protect a Crown decision not to adopt UPOV 1991, because the decision only applies to a ‘preference’ to Maori. Not adopting UPOV 1991 is not a preference to Maori.

Ø The Crown convinced the other TPPA countries to adopt an annex that allows NZ to either adopt UPOV 1991 or pass a domestic law equivalent to UPOV 1991 that complies with te Tiriti. But it has to do one or the other within 3 years of the TPPA coming into force.

Ø That obligation hasn’t changed in the TPPA-11. National and Labour didn’t try to have it suspended.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal has retained oversight of this matter and is actively monitoring it.

Ø The claimants say MBIE’s consultation process is unacceptable and have set in train their own process for expert advice and consultation.

Foreign investors’ rights

Ø The TPPA (and earlier NZ agreements) allows foreign investors from the countries involved to challenge laws, policies and decisions of a NZ government in controversial ad hoc offshore investment tribunals (known as investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS). An ISDS tribunal can award massive damages against a government for breaching special protections the agreements give to foreign investors.
PM Ardern has called ISDS a ‘dog’.

Ø The new government tried to protect NZ from ISDS in the TPPA-11, but failed.

Ø Australia signed a side-letter with NZ not to allow their investors to use ISDS against each other. But that side-letter was in the original TPPA and in other agreements. It’s not new to Labour.

Ø The new government says some other countries will sign a similar side letter, but won’t say who. Unless all the other ten countries sign side-letters, they don’t protect NZ from the risk of ISDS disputes.

Ø A provision that allowed investors to use ISDS to enforce infrastructure contracts has been suspended (not removed); but that is marginal and doesn’t change the TPPA’s special protections to foreign investors or the ISDS process through which they can enforce them.

Ø The Treaty of Waitangi exception is unlikely to protect NZ from an ISDS case over new laws to promote compliance with te Titiri.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal noted ‘uncertainty about the extent to which ISDS may have a chilling effect on the Crown’s willingness or ability to meet particular Treaty obligations in the future or to adopt or pursue otherwise Treaty-consistent measures.’(p.50

Ø The government points to other protections for public policy measures, but those protections don’t apply to the main rules that investors rely on in ISDS disputes.

Ø The new government has instructed officials to oppose ISDS in future agreements, which is a positive move. But that doesn’t mean it will walk away if other parties insist on it. Officials are likely to advise that any new market access for agriculture is an acceptable trade-off.


Ø Trade Minister David Parker says NZ First’s policy of taxing bottled water exports would breach various international agreements because it is discriminatory. But there is a much bigger risk that foreign investors could threaten to bring an ISDS dispute if moves to resolve water claims affect their commercial interests.

Ø NZ has protected the right to adopt discriminatory measures in the TPPA-11 ‘with respect to water, including the allocation, collection, treatment and distribution of drinking water’. But it says: ‘This reservation does not apply to the wholesale trade and retail of bottled mineral, aerated and natural water.’

Ø That reservation of the right to regulate on water does not apply to the main rules that investors rely on when they bring ISDS disputes against governments.

Ø The Treaty of Waitangi exception would not stop investors challenging such measures.

Ø There is a serious risk that the government would back away from a proposed solution to Māori rights over water if MFAT or an investor from a TPPA country, says the solution would breach NZ’s obligations.

Land and forestry

Ø The new government is rushing through changes to the Overseas Investment Act to restrict foreign purchases of residential housing. They admit that the law would breach the TPPA if it was passed after the agreement came into force.

Ø In January 2018 the government also sought consultation with Maori over proposals to redefine sensitive land under the Overseas Investment Act to include forestry cutting rights.

Ø The separation of cutting rights from the land was a device used by the Labour government in 1988 to allow corporatisation of the forests and separation of the land from the trees so the forests could be privatised.

Ø Labour and NZ First want to restore the right of NZ, and Maori, ownership of the forests. They have to change the foreign investment law before the TPPA comes into force, because they can’t do so afterwards.

Ø The TPPA only allows the government to keep the categories that are subject to foreign investment vetting which exists when the TPPA comes into force.

Ø The TPPA text says the vetting applies to ‘sensitive land’. If the government wants to implement its election policy, it has to rush through these changes to the law.

Ø But if the TPPA enters into force the government won’t be able to change the investment law to address other failed treaty settlements, such as fisheries quotas, or policies like carbon credits for forests.

Ø Even if changes are made to allow restrictions on future foreign investors, any existing investors from TPPA countries could still bring an ISDS dispute claiming their rights have been breached by the new laws because they can’t get as much for selling their assets as they had expected.

‘Consultation’ and tino rangatiratanga

Claimants in Te Paparahi o te Raki (Wai 1040) have challenged the Crown’s right to negotiate international treaties without the full and equal participation of nga iwi me nga hapu.

Ø The original TPPA was negotiated in total secrecy, aside from leaks. So were the meetings after the US withdrew. National was not interested in genuine consultation with anyone, let alone recognising te tino rangatiratanga o nga iwi me nga hapu. The same secrecy continues under the new government.

Ø The Waitangi Tribunal advised the Crown to consult with Māori to make the Treaty of Waitangi exception stronger. That hasn’t happened.

Labour has kept the same exception. Labour held meetings in various cities in early December and January. But this is not a good faith dialogue: they say the TPPA-11 is the best deal they can get, no further changes can be made, and they are prepared to sign it. The ‘consultation’ can’t change anything. That’s not a Treaty partnership.

The new government says it wants to develop a ‘new and inclusive trade agenda’ that makes trade and investment work for Māori, small business, women, and address climate change, environment and regional development.

That sounds positive. But the examples it gives are clip-ons to existing agreements that don’t address, let alone override, the problems the agreements create. And they are usually unenforceable.

Labour and NZ First’s positions on TPPA and te Tiriti show that it’s businesses as usual for the Crown.

They will try to shut down the Waitangi Tribunal process, while they run consultations around the motu (eg Wellington, 12 February) to promote an agreement the majority of parliamentary parties say they will support.

Other processes to advance Titiri-based continue over UPOV 1991.

Public meetings will be held in February in

Auckland on 12th,
Wellington on 14th,
Nelson on 20th,
Christchurch on 21st
and Dunedin on 22nd.

The arguments being used to promote the agreement don’t stack up for Maori or for Aotearoa/New Zealand.

The parties that make up new government promised change. If they are going to deliver, their positions on TPPA have to change.

Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, 1 February 2018
Prof Jane Kelsey
Faculty of Law
The University of Auckland
New Zealand


Click HERE for further details of the meetings

The re-branded TPPA-11 with little changed is set to be signed in Chile on March 8th! See details of PUBLIC MEETINGS coming up

From It’s Our Future:

The TPPA-11 has had a rebranding to the CPTPPA (Comprehensive and Progressive Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement) – yet there is very little that is comprehensive or progressive about it, and very little has changed from the original TPPA.

The 11 nations that are party to the agreement will be meeting in Chile to sign the TPPA-11 on 8th March.

Come along and hear experts Professor Jane Kelsey, Dr Burcu Kilic, and Laila Harre speak in Auckland and Wellington, and Professor Jane Kelsey plus other speakers in Nelson, Christchurch and Dunedin about what the TPPA-11 will mean for New Zealand.

Event Details


Monday 12 Feb, 6.30pm, Ellen Melville Centre, corner of High St and Freyberg Place, Auckland CBD


Tuesday 14 Feb, 6.30pm, Wesley Church, 75 Taranaki St, Wellington


Tuesday 20 Feb, 7pm, Masonic Lodge, 107 Nile Street, Nelson


Wednesday 21 Feb, Knox Chruch, 28 Bealey Avenue, Christchurch


Thursday, 22 Feb, Knox Chruch, 449 George St, Dunedin




If you do not want to see euthanasia legalized in NZ – you need to make a submission – date’s been extended (info & template included)

If you do not agree with euthanasia & do not want it legalized in NZ, you can go to the website below & make a submission. For more information on what is entailed with this Bill, read at the website. They’ve done a good comprehensive overview of the pertinent points and included info from other countries that have already enabled euthanasia.


The Select Committee considering David Seymour’s euthanasia bill (whose members interestingly ALL voted for euthanasia in the 1st Reading!) have set the deadline for submissions as soon as 20 February 2018. They seem to be hoping that you’ll be too distracted by the festive and holiday season to get around to making a submission against the bill. Let’s disappoint them!

So we’ve done all the ‘prep work’ for you.

By 2nd FEB! If you don’t want NZ’s copper network gone that is safer for your health & enables your landline, you need to make a submission by 2nd February! (Template for email provided)

This flew under the radar for me. Was not aware but have just heard thanks to a reader. Submissions are due by the 2nd of February this year 2018!

Go to this link to find a submission form, easy as. You can tweak it for your own needs & email to the address provided:

There is also a facebook page on this issue at this link:

Did you know that a NZ man died from 1080 poisoning in 1966? … his family is still waiting for NZ authorities to acknowledge this


The family of a Mataura possum hunter who died from 1080 poisoning 43 years ago want his death publicly acknowledged by the Department of Conservation and Animal Health Board.

Both agencies say no-one has died of accidental 1080 poisoning in New Zealand.

But Ian Buchanan’s widow, 69-year-old Elva Wicks, of Invercargill, said that was not true.

Wicks was 25 years old and the mother of three young children when her first husband, Ian Buchanan, died a “ghastly death” in Dunedin Hospital in 1966.

Coroner J Murray found Buchanan died from “central nervous system depression accompanied by respiratory and cardiac failure due to 1080 poisoning”.

The poison was found by investigators in a tin of jam kept in a back porch cupboard, but it was never discovered how the poison came to be in the jam, or how Buchanan consumed the 1080.

“If DOC and the AHB say they haven’t heard anything about Ian’s death it’s because they don’t want to hear,” Wicks said.

“It is documented on his death certificate – how can they deny it?”

AHB spokeswoman Anne McLean said the manner of Buchanan’s death was unclear.

DOC spokesman Rory Newsam said the department was unaware of Buchanan’s death until alerted by the media this week.