Tag Archives: Outdoors Party

Whilst NZ’s High Court agreed yesterday that it’s ‘arguable .. the Crown has acted unlawfully’ with the VX rollout, the Crown will be sorting that today by tweaking the law

For background info go here

“From Outdoors party press release: “It is arguable that the Crown has acted unlawfully”!
We won because we were right. We lost because the judge is going to let them do it anyway.


The press release says:
*“The High Court has just released its decision on the urgent challenge to the Pfizer vaccine approval and vaccination rollout plan, agreeing with the plaintiff that it was reasonably arguable that the Minister’s approval was unlawful. Her Honour Justice Ellis has agreed that everyone in New Zealand over 16 is not a limited number of patients, and so the decision is arguably ultra vires the requirements of s23 of the Medicines Act, and she has urged the government to reconsider the lawfulness of the provisional consent they granted for the Pfizer vaccine. Her Honour stopped short of ordering the vaccine rollout to stop, out of concern of undermining public confidence in the vaccine and wasting vaccine stock that is already in New Zealand.””

(Above comment by Amanda Vickers at facebook).

Legally, citing Lawyer, Sue Grey’s conclusions:

“..the judge urged the Crown to [re]consider the law carefully… That’s about all she can do due to a law passed in 2016”.

You can hear Sue’s commentary (pre govt’s subsequent announcements) here at this link.

However…. the Crown has now come up with a Plan B, saying they had been going to tweak the provisional law anyway!

“Health Minister Andrew Little says Section 23 has been used over 40 years by successive Governments to grant early access to approved therapeutic substances when it is in the public good.”
(Links to mainstream media’s coverage are below)

Sue comments regarding today’s emergency reform:

The government has announced an emergency reform of the Medicines Act because they were copped acting unlawfully. But it’s not even on the listed Parliamentary business… They apparently have no respect for any rules, for truth or justice and accordingly no business representing us” (Sue Grey, Lawyer).

FURTHER UPDATE (19/5/21)

“Attorney-General David Parker misleading Parliament. They have made the new amendment “Notwithstanding s22….” Section 22 requires the benefit of a new medicine to exceed the risks. The removal of this criteria is a fundamental and very serious change. Why would anyone who is supposed to represent the public interest approve a new medicine on a provisional or any other basis if the benefit does NOT exceed the risks? This is what happens when the PM and Ministers arrogantly ignore an open letter then rush through law without consultation or social licence.” (Sue Grey, Lawyer)

IN CONCLUSION

Read at the mainstream sources below & decide for yourself. Those who wish to take this experimental injection, that is their personal right & choice. And those who do not, likewise. The point of this challenge in court was that the provisional approval was for a limited number of people only, not for all of NZ. However, as we can see here, the Crown will sort that no problem, by tweaking the paperwork. It has been clear from the media spin from way back that it is their intention to have everybody take the experimental injection anyway. After all they have purchased enough supplies to accommodate every Kiwi for two doses. As her Honour Judge Ellis has said yesterday … in spite of the aforementioned cautionary statements, they don’t want to waste that stock or undermine public confidence.

I note the ‘limited number’ concern seems to have now slipped into oblivion.

RELATED:

New Zealand is changing the law TODAY (Robin Westenra @ seemorerocks website)

LINKS:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-coronavirus-govt-makes-urgent-law-change-after-high-court-ruling-on-legality-of-vaccine-rollout/IWB53LM2XNNFMOK44DSGN66JEU/?fbclid=IwAR2TsS5CHgI9OmJYoQRevF8TVWEunjC9CWo9Efc4j7pxIFbzIj_lhxdoQJs

ahttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300310925/government-to-introduce-new-law-for-vaccine-after-legal-challenge?fbclid=IwAR3hIBVrBSGrgMrxbyCWppGYy8E_V6RYLpoMBW85-ylo9zHFfGi6D9IFSJU

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2105/S00154/technical-amendment-to-medicines-act.htm?fbclid=IwAR1u0ixABhod_2ivU8e_BI-fZkvj0Ejk8MUQVPhcESM20LGDoT1sFTE3WiI

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/442822/technical-anomaly-spurs-urgent-law-change-for-covid-19-vaccine?fbclid=IwAR28JOhuPZjM_ltwMpMiN0tYiNvQH1x3RNWw9TIA0QR5nrRiPtn0dINIWEU

Info on emergency approval at Pfizer’s source country: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained

Image by Hatice EROL from Pixabay

The Water Services Bill – NZ Outdoors Party submission to Parliament

Sue Grey

Sue Grey and Alan Simmons from the NZ Outdoors Party submitting on 22March 2021 on the Water Services Bill to Parliament’s Health Select Committee and the Magna Carta and fundamental rights that must be protected.

The ‘Water Services Bill’, slipped in while you weren’t watching – NZ Govt seeks to take control of your private water supplies (NZ Outdoors Party) PLEASE SHARE

Thanks to Sue Grey & Alan Simmons of the Outdoors Party for making a submission today. (Their video of that to follow). Educate yourself on this (listen to them speak) and contact your MPs people. They seek to control your own private water supplies at, as usual, cost to yourselves. Licensing, testing, water safety plan etc. This includes adding fluoride and any other chemical so desired by them. Please share the info. EWR

NOTE: Maude Barlow warned us of this years ago in her book ‘Blue Gold’, a doco also of the same name. Here is an interview with her at YT:
Conversation With Board Chair Maude Barlow: Water Is A Human Right

Image by lisa runnels from Pixabay

When the “Cure” is more disruptive than the Virus … is our government acting lawfully, or has it over-reached?

from Sue Grey

The Epidemic Preparedness Act gives special powers to the Prime Minister when she is satisfied that the effects of an outbreak of a stated quarantinable disease (within the meaning of the Health Act 1956) are likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand (or stated parts of New Zealand) significantly.”

The irony, says Sue Grey, Co-leader of the NZ Outdoors Party and public rights lawyer, is that almost all of the disruption so far is from the government response, rather than from the virus.

https://www.outdoorsparty.co.nz/

How far can the government lawfully go?

This week’s further extension of Covid-19 level 4 restrictions by the NZ government has frustrated small businesses, families, patients waiting for medical treatment, outdoors people and constitutional lawyers alike.

Is our government acting lawfully, or has it over-reached? Has it acted on sound if shifting evidence, or has it been bamboozeled by media hype, and overreacted?

Is this massive social experiment in the best interests of the public of New Zealand, or has it been diverted by those with other agendas? Has the focus on “spreading the curve” and more recently on “eliminating” COVID-19 been proportionate to the original risk? Has the cure created more harm than the original risk, due to the social and economic effects, and the loss of our once cherished rights and freedoms?

Epidemic Preparedness Act

The government relies on three laws: A) The Epidemic Preparedness Act, B) Special powers in Part 3 of the Health Act; and C) the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act.

A: The Epidemic Preparedness Act

The Epidemic Preparedness Act at section 5, gives special powers to the Prime Minister: “With the agreement of the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare that he or she is satisfied that the effects of an outbreak of a stated quarantinable disease (within the meaning of the Health Act 1956) are likely to disrupt or continue to disrupt essential governmental and business activity in New Zealand (or stated parts of New Zealand) significantly.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0085/latest/whole.html#DLM404465

Covid 19 was notified as a quarantinable disease on 11 March 2020. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0031/latest/whole.html

Just eight days later, on 18 March 2020, Covid-19 was de-classified by the UK authorities. This meant it was no longer regarded a highly infectious disease.

Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.”

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid

The evidence is that while Covid-19 has triggered an extreme level of media interest, the death rate from the Covid, (at around 0.1%), is significantly less than the 1-10% that was first estimated.

Further, the overall death rate in Europe this season is similar to the death rate over the last five years. It appears that many deaths are being reported as deaths “from” Covid, when in other years they would be reported as heart attacks or pneumonia. The statistics confuse death “with” covid and death “from” covid.

COVID-19 has reportedly killed 14 New Zealanders over the last six weeks or so. The annual death rate in New Zealand is approximately 35,000 or close to 100 people per day. There is an average of one death from heart disease every 90 minutes (an average of 16 per day). Covid-19 is responsible for only about 0.3% of the NZ deaths in this time frame.

Most of the COVID deaths were elderly and suffering from pre-existing medical conditions. In at least one case, the family has publicly challenged Covid being reported as the cause of death, reporting their father/grandfather died at home from a heart attack, which was falsely reported as a Covid death.

An Epidemiclikely to disrupt essential government and business activity”

Curiously the legal criteria for triggering the Epidemic Preparedness Act is not the severity of a disease, but “the effects being likely to disrupt essential government and business activity”.

READ MORE

http://suegrey.co.nz/index.php/2020/04/23/when-the-cure-is-more-disruptive-than-the-virus/?fbclid=IwAR0_bMXYghlDozDjbBm6v02g3jwQ8Y-0RyDgk7aLy2suavC-xr_lKyUDrlw

 

Image by herbinisaac from Pixabay