N8WUNZ 20221125 (F) CVC OPT-IN OR OPT-OUT could it be that simple

We're going to get, it's funny that you said it's going to be fun, when I quoted you, a very dry sounding thing, which is the second schedule of the COVID vaccine order, which you'll probably know by now, I'm going to do a judicial review, put in a judicial review on the by-rate or the lawfulness of that particular order. But that's, you know, it's a little way off, because every time I start to even think about it, something else comes up that is of always of interest and always of value. And I think what I'm going to talk about today is actually one of the most important things, because it's based on, and I don't know whether I have got all, yes, I've got them all. It's based on the principle, can you still hear me? Because I can't see you guys now. Yeah, they're all clear. Okay, cool. It's based on the principle that, what does it say, that everything is allowed that is not forbidden under the law. Okay. It's a maximum of law, and I'll put up, I'll share the, I'll share with my picture now, close to 10 days, I don't want that, do I? How do I get back to you guys? Have you got icons down the bottom of your screen? Oh, yeah, yeah, there we are. There you are. Okay. Now, I'm going to share something onto the screen. I think I can do this. Hold disabled participant. Hang on, I'll just let you go. Give it a second and then try again. I've enabled the screen sharing. Right. Now, the one I want is select an app window application you want to share. I don't want that one. You don't do like I've done at times and show absolutely everything. Okay, I'll just turn that off again for a second while I go back and have a look at at the one I particularly want. I think I'd have to open it properly. Oh, this is fun, isn't it? We're doing all these technical things. Yeah. It's that one there. Okay. And now, yeah, I didn't have it open. And now I'm going to go back and get on to you guys again and share the screen. Where is it? So for those that have just joined, Liz is going to chat to us tonight about the of the COVID-19 Health Response Act. Is that correct? Oh, here it is. Here it is. Here it is. Yeah, it's in the schedule and you may or may not know the screen sharing. Let's see if we because I can make these things a bit bigger. Apparently, once you've got it shared, I can make it bigger if it's not big enough. Here it is. There we go. Look at that. Yeah. Participants can now see your application. Okay. So it's based on the idea that I've got about it is based on this maxim. And here's a little clip from Wikipedia, which is fine. And it says there is a popular maxim in common law systems. Now, can you do you want me to make that a bit bigger? On my screen, it's really good. It's good. Okay. What about everybody else? If anybody in the Yeah, sweet. Okay. There's a popular maximum common law systems. Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. The idea is that in liberal democracies, we are inherently free to do anything. So long as it is not expressly prohibited by law. Otherwise, it's slavery. Exactly. The opposite principle, and this is even better. The opposite principle, everything which is not allowed is forbidden, states that an action can only be taken if it is specifically allowed. A senior English judge, Sir John Laws, stated the principles, so this is the both of them, as for the individual citizen, everything which is not forbidden is allowed. But for public bodies, and notably government, everything which is not allowed is forbidden. So do you say that the inherent sovereignty of the individual? Right? Now, this isn't groups, and this is very, very important. This is individuals, and this is why when we do judicial reviews, or when we take PG's, personal grievances, they're all taken individually, either against the state or public bodies, or we take them against the bosses. Right? Okay. So it's the individual that's sovereign, and people say it, but they don't actually understand how the law makes that work. Okay. So now going to, what happened was, how I got here was, I'll just read this a bit, how I got to thinking about this was, we've got a case where a McDonald's worker raised personal grievance, and it was a while back, and we did some, but I know I talked with her, and we did some stuff, but she raised a section 83. Right? Now, if you raise a section 83, you took action. You didn't just write them something, you actually took action. Right? If you put in a section 83, and then you stayed away, in most cases, they said, well, you're not going to take it, so you're on, you're suspended, anyway. So we did it, we haven't grappled with the section 83 in the court yet, but in terms of timing, it's perfect, because you've raised it by taking action on something that they, under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the Employment Relations Act under section 110A, have done which was wrong, and you've taken action on it. So they can't say you didn't raise it. Okay, the opposite, right. So then, what Erica said to me was, um, isn't, um, isn't, aren't the part 10, aren't, um, restaurant workers, aren't they, um, they're not in the, they're not in the schedule though, are they? Something like that, something to that, but I think she was meaning that they, uh, they didn't have that same sort of, uh, they, they, the boss made the, the decision, right. So anyway, I said, uh, oh no, it's, it's in the schedule, and started to look at a bit more. Well, what struck me when I looked at the schedule was part 10, the heading there, which I've put out in yellow, groups in relation to settings, where CBC required for persons to enter workplace or receive service. Now the CBC is the, um, COVID vaccine certificate, also known as my vaccine pass, you know, uh, sort of like, like it's a jolly little, um, pass to a, um, to a fun fair or something. So anyway, so groups in relation to settings where CBC required for persons to enter place or receive service. So the worker, so then they describe who these people are. So we've got workers of a food and drink business or service. We've got workers who carry out work at gyms, workers who carry out work at a permitted event, regardless of whether the work is carried out before people arrive at or leave the permitted event, and workers at close proximity business or services. And then the workers who carry out work for a tertiary education provider at a tertiary education premises that are located in an area described by, in part one of the schedule seven of the COVID public health response protection framework order. So then we have to go and have a look at the COVID-19 public health response protection order. But before we go there, we've got to really look at that little thing there that says, it's really the setting that's the focus of this, right? Settings where CBC is required. Well, when you go to the public health response protection framework, and I'll, I haven't, it's going to be too crowded for the screen, I think, and I don't want to, it's quite a clumsy thing to push it back and forth. But what we'll do is we'll put these, we'll put what I'm talking about up on the website for people to have a look at, so they can recall what I've said. So when you go to the protection framework, you look at the intent, this is also called the traffic light, the traffic light system. Okay. Now it began on the 2nd of December, 2021. When they said, oh, we have given up trying to have zero COVID, we're going to now, we're now going to focus on the vaccine. Right? So the CBC, when you look at the blurb, there's no Act of Parliament, well, there is, sorry, there's no Act of Parliament, there is an order about the CBC itself, but it's what's called descriptive, it's not proscriptive, which means it's a voluntary thing that you opt into. Now, when we've been through all of this explanation this morning in our legal meeting, Erica said, it's kind of like striped pyjamas, isn't it? Anybody who reads books to kids, or enjoys children's books, well, you know, there's a story about striped pyjamas. I'm not really familiar with it. If Erica's on, maybe she'll talk about it in a minute, or somebody might be able to tell us what it is. And we can get to understand the concept here, right? So when you look at the, so we, basically, it's a little piece of technical order, a little technical order that says the way that you apply for one of these certificates, and you can either apply online, or I think you can write to them, to the, what is it, to Bloomfield, I think it was. He can also give exemptions to these certificates, and that gets put on your, it gets put on your CBC. Now, all of the people that will be accepted from this, and have exemptions, will be people like the judges, and the court staff, and the politicians, and anybody working for Parliament, and every Tom, you know, everybody that they want to protect from this poison will be getting one of those. So even though people might have CBCs, they might have a CBC that's got an exemption that's granted by, and you can get a medical exemption too, but of course, here we go again with the doctors writing off to Bloomfield, who never grants any of those, but there's a whole group of people that they've got, bureaucrats, etc, that have got these CBCs, I would say, right? Now, when you then go and look at, you go and look at the, and as I say, I'll put these acts up, sorry, not acts, orders up, but if you want to, let's see, can I write somewhere? No, not at the moment. Where can I do it? No, meeting controls, let's see if I can do it there. Oh, here we go. Let's see, let's see, participants, anyway, chat, I could do it there. The, what do you call it? The order is called the COVID-19 public health response. I'll just put PHR, because that's public health response, and then it's, what's it called? Protection framework, because you've got to always call it something quite obtuse, so people will obscure, sorry, not obtuse, framework, protection framework, order, and it'll be 2021, because it was the 2nd of December, okay? 20, order, sorry, order 2021, and that will be, then you can have a look at it there. Now, you look in the interpretation, and you can see there's this thing called, and I've got some written down here, so I can take you there, and show you it. You've got, under this Part 3, you've got CVC rules, and non-CVC rules, right? So, this is interesting. What are the CVC rules? So, a premises that has CVC rules, this is the clause that applies, okay? Regulated businesses or service must display their CBC status. Now, anybody who's in business, they might know exactly what this looks like, but I think it's a little sign saying, you know, you can't come in unless you have CV, you know, you've got a VAX, a CV, you know, what you call it. And a regulated business or service must have systems and processes to check persons carry CVC, and verify CVC compliance. So, the verifying, I think, is to check that they haven't got a forgery. So, there's some way of doing it, but I don't know. But it's to do with a little QR code. I don't think many people have got the paper one. I think it is available, but not many people. Most people have got the, you know, every grandma and grandpa has got them too. I mean, talk about daft. But, anyway, so that's the people who are what's called CVC rules. Now, what are CVC non-rules? The non-CB rules that apply to food and drink business or service are as follows. What's it say? The regulated business or service must display CVC status. Same thing. So, if the CVC status of somebody who requires the CVC, which, of course, is not legally required, the one that's got non-CVC rules must display a non-CVC status. So, they must say, we don't require CVC. We don't require. You got it? Oh, my goodness. More smoke than there is. Yep. Yep. More smoke than there is. That is all that's required. That was all that was required. And the thing is, if we go then back to what was the heading for Part 10 groups, if all businesses had to do was show a sign saying they're not requiring CVC, we're CVC required. They're showing a sign that saying CVC is not required. Their workers aren't in that group. Wow. Oh, my God. It is all the angst people have been put through. All the businesses that were, you know, didn't want it, said, no, I don't want to sack you, but we've got to do it. Whether they actually understood that the smoke and mirrors though. Here you are. I mean, I've been looking at this blasted schedule for two years. Wow. It's like the exemptions. The CEO's ability to give workers exemptions. I mean, people, vast majority of people still don't believe that. They're like, it can't be that easy. Right. Yeah, that's right. I mean, I was talking about group, anything under, you know, I did do a lot of work and gave people a lot of information about exemptions, you know, and said, look, well, all of the people who were hairdressers had their own little place and everything. They were never in it. They were the person who could give themselves their own permission to keep their business going. All of them could do that. But in relation to these group 10, which were sort of like the close contact ones, right, all they had to do was step outside of the herd, of following the mob. There was even talk before, and the reason being is that, of course, it breaches the Human Rights Act, discrimination. Right. Yeah. And we, of course, are the ones who are leading the charge on the discrimination front. And we're doing what's section 21.1.H7, which, of course, was never, that they thought, oh, well, how are you going to discriminate? How can they catch us out that way? I mean, lawyers had a glimmer of it because I was reading an article once I'd started to look at this and I'd started to bring up news that there was a comment by somebody to Radio New Zealand, you know, how they put up their stuff now and again, by a lawyer saying, a human rights and a constitutional lawyer, I think he was saying, well, you know, they can't actually, that's right, he commented and said, I don't think that the CVCs or the passes, the vaccine passes will be able to be put into law because that would breach the Human Rights Act. In terms of discrimination, he didn't say what way, but he also said, but I think a lot of businesses will take it up as a marketing thing because then they can, you know, people will be, because they got this idea that we were bad to be around, us unvaccinated people. Yeah. And, you know, that people have get it off. So what was it? So they had to, so in the non-CVC rules, okay, which they, of course, you know, they had to display the fact that they were non-CVC and they must comply with fixed capacity limit. So apparently, but it seemed to be, there was a capacity limit on all of the places anyway, based on a specified physical distancing rule. And when you looked at the specified, because when you look at this order, it's got one metre or two metre, but mostly it's saying that in actual fact, as is practicable, right? Now, I think that if they had put up, you know, the events, for example, none of those young people needed to get vaccinated for events. If the events, people had just said, we're going to, we've decided we'll be non, you know, if you want to come, yeah, you know, you're only coming off the street where you're with everybody else. Thank you very much, young people. What about what they put, yeah, like bars and one person I can think of in particular, you know, WorkSafe and that whole situation, just making people think that they were going to get fined those huge fines for not complying. Well, this is the thing, you know, they're totally, WorkSafe are totally in the finish over this. See they're promoting district court action now, WorkSafer. I got that somewhere. No, what was this email? I'd have got it on my email. Oh, hello, baby. Yeah. Might have been on my email. Is the lead taking some people to court? No, they are saying that people can take employers to court, which I thought was interesting. We need to take WorkSafe to court. They're the criminals. Yeah. Wow. Wow. Well, of course, of course. Oh, it's getting vital. Yeah. I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Are they trying to say, oh, it wasn't us, it wasn't us now? Yeah, I think, I think probably. I just, yeah, WorkSafe. I just posted it in. Yeah, I just put it in the chat. Yeah. Oh, cool. The Health and Safety Work Act 2015 specifically provides that in certain circumstances, private prosecutions may be initiated. Section 144, where the legislature cannot or chooses not to prosecute work, health and safety events. Well, this is the one for all of the injured, especially the criminal one. But of course, we've got a, we've got an option of also under coercion, for coercion in particular, and I've been talking about this the last few weeks, for coercion in particular under Section 97 of the Health and Safety at Work Act. The, yeah, and I think, you know, in terms of fletches, for example, a whole lot of people should get, because there must be hundreds of workers there who, um, who were coerced, but there'll also be thousands of workers who were injured, right? And under the Health and Safety at Work Act, of course, Section 47, like I was bloody saying all of the time, private prosecutions, guys. Yeah, yes. You know what, WorkSafe, WorkSafe are now saying we value private prosecutions as an important tool in the work, health and safety system. And when did this come out, Em? It must be, like, just in the last day or so. Look, nobody, they would have never said that if they didn't know that. Well, Erica's got hers in as a private prosecution. Awesome. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's so cool. So, yeah, I thought, wow. Yay! Fantastic. So who sent, did the nurse send you that? No, I think I shared it in our little, one of my little messenger groups, but, um, I can't remember where it came from originally, whether, no, Priscilla, there we go, Priscilla. It actually says it was written in 2018. Oh, bloody oh. Oh, there you go. Oh, so Priscilla's just gone and found it. That'll be right. Yeah. Yeah. Fantastic. Fantastic. Yeah, they're having to admit we were bloody right all along. I'll share that in both of this. Yeah, I think, I think in the, in the Section 80, uh, 83, was it, did we mention it as a private prosecution or was it in the WorkSafe letters? I can't remember. I told them they could be prosecuted anyway. Absolutely. Yeah. But it was definitely in the letters to WorkSafe. Yeah. They got told, um, uh, you know, and I advised businesses to send them to them and say, back off. Under Section 144, um, we'll take a private, you know, we can take a private prosecution, um, again, uh, you know, um, did I say, obviously, I can't, I told them to back off because they, under their Act, they're not supposed to be, um, interfering, you know, they're not even allowed to touch a worker. Right. Yeah. So what else did I have in this little package? And then I'll go and talk a little bit more about this whole idea. Right. The close proximity businesses and services, of course, um, um, oh, they've got to do all of these things. Um, uh, so this was sort of like the gym, uh, I think the gyms and the, and the hairdressers. Um, they must, um, so the regulated, uh, ones, um, must, um, uh, display the CVC status and they must check that the, they've got the person's carrying a CVC and to verify it. Right. That same thing. The non-CVC rules, uh, they must have systems and processes, um, they must have systems and processes to ensure workers wear face coverings. Um, but that was sort of depending on all sorts of stuff. Yeah. Regulated businesses must this, um, display a CVC status. So which means the non-CVC status and they must mitigate the risk of spreading COVID-19 to, to the extent that physical, um, distancing cannot be maintained. So basically those things, hand washing, um, but no, but you see, none of them were coming at the, the weren't saying, weren't coming in and saying, are you washing your hands so many times a day or anything like that, or looking to see how close people were, anything like that. It was all to do with what was displayed on the outside. And here again. And even the fact they were working, that people were even working. Yeah. Washing, washing hands doesn't create revenue. Only if you make hand cleaner, right? Yeah. And apparently here's another interesting thing about those, uh, that system, which they call an EVA, I think, or an EA, EA or something. It's an electronic, I've got it somewhere. Sorry. But, but it's, it's basically the QR code to, to, you know, um, get the interface between the technology and the tracking that was developed in New Zealand and sold overseas. So it was developed in New Zealand. We are at the front of a lot of very, very, well, can be dodgy. It's been used in extremely, our science, very smart scientists and innovative scientists in this country. Yeah. Just like, I don't know whether people realise that, um, thing that came out recently about foodstuffs doing that facial recognition trial. Yes. They're already doing it. It's already in the shops. Well, I have that from first hand. Yeah. Well, what the position it puts in terms of our PGs, the position it puts, um, um, it puts the, already said, you know, it was always a choice of the employer. It puts all of those, um, foodstuffs people, everything, um, all of them, all of the restaurants, if there's any rest, people, you know, serving restaurants. They, they clearly, they could have made a choice. It wasn't, they weren't made, even though they were under these, you know, they were in this little box, right. But, um, all they had to do was to, um, read, read it properly. Okay. Or get a lawyer to advise them properly. But the lawyers had no, um, interest in, it seems, and even helping, um, they were caught up in the, in the mishmash as well. Yeah. That's so interesting, Liz. Yeah, yeah. Well, it's, um, I think a whole lot of businesses, small businesses should get together and try and do something. Even, even if it's, um, even if it's, um, getting together and, I don't know, suing media. Mm-hmm. Misleading, um, misleading advertising, misleading advertising. Yeah. I mean, what, what, of course, and here's the, here's the ironic thing. The, um, I guess, the people that should be gone, gone after, uh, the, uh, the Crown Law Office, um, what's the, what are they called? Parliamentary Council. Mm-hmm. They're the ones who write this stuff. They're the ones who write this stuff. But lawyers are supposed to be able to read it. So, you know, um. They're not half asleep. Yeah. Well, I, I've, um, I've sent this over to, um, Steve, um, Steve Oliver. I hope he gets in touch at some stage because it's, it is, um, um, yeah. Okay. Uh, the link, um, link to confirmation. I don't know where the link is. I've written on here, link to confirmation that my vaccine pass is not legally required. Now, there is a, there is a, a coloured, um, piece of paper with everything on it. And then at the bottom, it just says, um, my vaccine pass is not legally required, but, you know, you might like to have it. Yeah. Yeah. So, so they can, you know, talk about, read the small print. But, um, you know, it's, it's, I'm not really familiar with the, with the, um, with the pyjama story, but I would say that what you would say was, um, groups in relation to settings where striped pyjamas are required for persons to enter, place or receive service. So the people with the CVV passes are the equivalent of people who would wear striped pyjamas if they had to. Yeah. Yeah. If they had to. If ever, it's like that, is that, that Dr. Sue's book too. With the, what, what's the one guys with the stars on their bellies? Oh, I don't know that one. I'll think about the green pants one. I like the green pants story. That's cool. Yeah. Well, the stars on the belly one was, and somebody will know it. It was all very cool. It was people with stars on their bellies. And they thought they were the best, or they were the ones on the outside. I can't remember which one it was. Oh, I'll go look it up, eh? Yeah. Um, and then, and then it was like people were getting them taken off and put on it, but they would keep trying to be in the in-group. And then they decided everybody would be without or everybody would be with. Thanks for coming along, um, Lynette. Sounds like your family's getting out of hand and they need you to go sort them out. See you, see you Wednesday. All right. Okay. Uh, now I'll just take this off, uh, stop share. And I will find the one that is now talking about this, this idea of, um, um, the, you know, the, the sort of, uh, if you like the, the jurisprudence or the legal philosophy behind this idea that everything is, um, everything is lawful, that is not forbidden. And I've started to put it together. Oh, is it, uh, have I taken away? No, there it is. Because what, of course, I'm telling you, I'm going to do is, um, actually do a judicial review. Okay. And, and I think I've said before that, um, let's see, where am I back again? I've said before that it will be based on it being, um, that the, um, this particular, um, order, this vaccination order could be, I'll do the more, um, ultraviolet, no ultraviolet, I think it's one, one of them's enough at the moment is ultraviolet act. Um, because of section 11, it doesn't envisage that, but section and, um, section 11, and actually when the act was introduced, the 2020 act, uh, it came in on the back of the 1956 health act. And I'm going to show you some stuff out of the 1956 health act that you will be absolutely blown away by. Because all of these rights are the individual rights, all under borer, they're not group rights, guys. Um, and people, even though they feel, um, very safe in groups, um, the, the group of a, of a union, for example, is only based, is only as good as the right to secure for you guys, your individual rights. Okay. Um, is this one? Yeah, this is it. Okay. Share. Okay. I don't know if it's coming up yet. The black screen. Okay. Um, now I've talked before about the seventies, um, section 72 and, and, um, uh, of the health act and see, um, I'll be able to take this up. Um, and see, um, you know, they kind of, they can't have had a, had a, um, under section 11, which is the orders that can be made under the 2020 act. There's no way that indicates you could make a vaccination order. Right. Now the reason for it is the health act of 1956 and the principles of that act, which we'll go through soon, but this is what, when I started to look for that, because I knew it was a maximum of law. So I started to have a look around about, you know, had other people thought about that too. Right. So this is the, this is what was seen in March, 2021 in response to the coronavirus disease, 2019, the health secretary, Matt Hancock, reportedly advised prime minister Boris Johnson in the following terms. We've got to tell people that they can't do anything unless it's explicitly allowed by law. This advice has been described a radical suggestion and Hancock himself reportedly described it as Napoleonic flipping British tradition, because in lockdown people would be forbidden from doing anything unless the legislation said in terms that they could. Whilst the foregoing is merely reported, the coronavirus act 2020, and the hundreds of pieces of subordinate legislation made pursuant to that act, prima facie, which means on the face of it, abrogated the principle in the United Kingdom. And this has been confirmed by other writers, including Adam Wagner, a barrister specialising in human rights and public law. Law would something, and they're always former judges because they're too gutless to say anything while they're sitting on the bench. A former judge of the Supreme Court stated in a lecture given on the 27th of October 2020 that the ease with which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms, which are fundamental to our existence as social beings, came as a shock to me in March 2020. So why wasn't he getting off his ass and finding out how people could resist them? Because I'm sure they had the same sort of stuff, let-outs, exemptions for themselves, mostly, right? So this is a part of the 2020 Act, actually, and the preliminary provisions of it, part one, were that on the 24th of March, and I talked about this before, how it was triggered, the Economic Preparedness Act 2006 under Section 5. I had a look at it, I couldn't see how it worked really, but anyway, it allows the use of special powers. So they must have decided that special powers was enough to trigger the Health Act 1956, Section 70, for the purpose of preventing the outbreak or spread of COVID-19. But if you look at Section 70, you'll see there's nothing in it about vaccines, of course. It's all about, and that's the one I've been through quite extensively talking about, that it's about the only testing that they're talking about is when someone's got some disease and they're required to go for a test, right? And you wait till you see some more of directions that can be given under the Act, and you will be surprised, okay? For the State of National Emergency, now I said that it hadn't been, but it had, but it only actually went on until the 8th of June, and then that was the end of it. Since then, it's all been these Epidemic Preparedness Act notices that have kept it all going for the balance of the time. Okay, and then we'll have a look at, you can have a look, if you go to the Health Act 1956, you'll be able to see those sections and look for yourself how they used the Health Act that required the premises be closed and forbade congregation in outdoor places of amusement or recreation. So they were using the Health Act, but they hid it to a large extent, except the only thing that really gave you a clue that they were using the Health Act, although this was in it, I mean, I must admit, this was always in the Act and gave you the sort of the background to it. So then we go over, this is Part 3A of the Health Act 1956, and it's about the management of infectious diseases. So what they did was, I think it was about the 10th of March, they got COVID on the schedule of infectious diseases. So the overarching principles, basically the principles to be taken into account by every person in every court performing a function under this Act. So that's people like WorkSafe, right? So WorkSafe can definitely be civilly taken to court over what they did in terms of terrorising workplaces, okay? Nothing in Sections 90C to H is to be taken as indicating that the principles in those sections are set in any order of importance, just depends on who you, what you're going to. So the paramount consideration is the protection of public health, that's fine. Respect for individuals is C. An individual must be treated with respect for the dignity of the individual when any functions due to the powers are exercised or performed in relation to him or her under this part, okay? And they must take into account any known special circumstances or vulnerabilities of the individual. Now we start talking about the individual, okay? Because this is all about the individual, nothing about a group here. There's nothing in the Health Act that talks about groups of people, right? Workers who work in certain places and all of this crap, right? Because they're not, they haven't got a disease. This is going from the point of view that the individual has a disease that they might spread around and this is the way they have to be dealt with, right? Voluntary compliance. An individual who poses a public health risk that can be prevented, minimised, etc, etc. They must be given the opportunity to voluntarily comply. A personal court. Individuals, and the only word about communities is in here under 92D3. Individuals and communities should be encouraged to take responsibility for their own health. That's all it says, okay? And to that end, participate in decisions about how to protect and promote their own health and the health of communities. It's not a top down in terms of communities, it's they generate something. They don't get, the state doesn't come in and tell your boss, do this, right? And yet this is what it's all coming out of. This is the actual legislation that was passed by Parliament, not an order. This is primary legislation here. It's not your second degree crap that's coming out of the Prime Minister's office. 92E, individual to be informed. A person exercising, performing any functions in relation to an individual under this part must, as far as practicable in the circumstances, promptly inform the individual. And then it's all about the individual. Any right of the individual to appeal against the exercise of performance of the functions, duties or powers and to apply for judicial review. Now I put that in red to remind myself because this is what I'll be using as the basis of a judicial review of the COVID-19, right? The COVID-19 vaccine order. Okay, I can appeal against the exercise of performance of the functions of Auckland City because that's the path I'm going to take. They closed all the things that I couldn't get into the library, right? It doesn't matter how, I mean, this is, you know, compared to what other people suffered. But this is to make an example, right? The principle of proportionality. Not to be taken in an arbitrary manner. Measures applied to an individual under this part must be proportionate to the public health risk, sought to be prevented, minimised or managed. And not to be taken in an arbitrary manner. Now, what does the New York case say? That when they put exemptions into their legislation, they acted in an arbitrary manner because they took out certain groups who were exempt, right? Just like our order has taken out certain people and said you're exempt, right? So, you know, it's arbitrary. There's so much stuff for judicial review in this. 92 least restrictive. Okay, so the point of it is that in the judgment of the court, it will achieve the objective of minimising the public health risk posed by the individual. Now, when you had nothing wrong with you and they said, well, just because you're on this list, you know, then you've got to look at, you've got to look and say, can that be right? Can that be more? It's ultraviolence. That's why people knew in their hearts this wasn't right, right? And you remember what we said at the beginning about, I think it's Lord Stratton said that, or expressed that principle of it's, and that was in 2017. And he said, as far as the public bodies go, and especially the government, everything is forbidden to them, except which is allowed. Everything. Then it measures no longer than necessary, right? And how long have we had it? Two years, more. 92, aye. Now, that's a good one. This is where we start the directions that they're allowed to make. Medical officer of health may give directions to individual posing public health risk. They can't, they can't, the medical officer of health cannot give directions to groups. He didn't, of course. He passed it on to the bosses. That's how they think they've slid out. This section applies if a medical officer of health believes on reasonable grounds that an individual poses a public health risk. The medical officer may give the individual any direction or directions listed in subsection four that the medical officer of health thinks are necessary to prevent or minimize the public health risk posed by the individual. Now, this is kind of interesting down here because it kind of mirrors, well, the bosses mirrored and had it in their risk assessments, what they were going to do. Counseling, education, other activities related to the infectious disease. What did they do? Refrain from, they gave a direction through those orders to refrain from carrying out specified activities. For example, undertaking employment, using public transport or traveling within or outside New Zealand, either absolutely or unless stated conditions are observed. This is for individuals who've got a disease. Not everybody. No. Refrain from going to specified places, either absolutely or unless stated conditions are observed. Refrain from associating with specified persons or specified classes of persons. Those people who kept your old people locked up in bloody rest homes, the ones who were kept from their dying. Those people. You can see why they got going with the asymptomatic thing, eh? That there was this idea that even though you didn't have symptoms, you still had it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. But they had to actually prove you had it. Yeah. And they used their... But I mean, the thing is that that person, that had to be the medical officer of health, had to give you those directions personally. Oh, true. Wow. In person, yeah. Not through... Not your boss. Not your boss. Not the people at the rest home. Not the people in the hospital. Not, yeah, not the people at the cafe. No. Take specified action to prevent, minimise the public health risk posed by the individual. Stay at all times at a specified times at a specified place of residence. This is the people locked up in EMIQ, right? Accept supervision by a named person, or a person for the time being, holding a named office, including without limitation. Attending meetings arranged by that person. So this is sort of like, this is sort of designed for people who've got AIDS, probably. And, you know, like, let's try and educate them out of whatever they're doing. Providing that person with information on any action, occurrence or plan that is relevant to the public health risk posed by the individual. Five. Now, this is why I've outlined this in red. In no case may a direction require an individual to submit to compulsory treatment. What was MIQ then? What is that? What was MIQ if it wasn't compulsory? Was it treatment or was it imprisonment? And I suppose you could put them in, yeah, because they were told you had to have, well, you're here, you have to do those tests, yeah? Or you're not getting out. Yeah, that's correct. That's correct. I know people that have got PTSD after being subjected to that. Yeah, these MIQ centres need suing the hell out of as well. Subsection 7 applies if a direction requires an individual to refrain from carrying out a specified activity, either absolutely or unnecessarily. The medical officer of health may contact any person who occupies them. Now, this is kind of like telling your boss, right? So if you've got something, the medical officer of health says, we'd better not go to work with that because, you know, you might spread it around. The medical officer of health may contact any person who occupies a position of responsibility in relation to the activity and tell that person about one or more of the following matters. The direction, the public health risk posed by the individual's engagement in the activity, ways of minimising that public health risk. So it doesn't mean that you get sacked either. No. They can't sack you because, remember the disability one, yeah? So even if you've got it, under the law, the law that protects even people with, you know, diseases. If the director general so requires, the medical officer of health must send him, so then the director general is over the top. So the medical officer of health is kind of the head honcho. But the medical officer of health was the one that was supposed to be doing all of this. Despite anything in the Privacy Act, if a person requires another person to provide information under this section, the person required to provide the information must comply with the requirement and be advised that the information must be provided for the effective management of infectious diseases. And nothing in this section limits the right of an individual to access or disclose information about him or herself under that act or any other act. That means you can give it up freely. But that's why they were saying, you know, you sign off. They couldn't require you to give that information, because it was to give it to the director general or the medical officer of health, wasn't to the boss. They had no right to it. Contacts, that one's about contacts, and they have to give directions, what sort of directions, participate in any of the following conduct provided by a health provider, counselling, education, other activities, nothing much for contacts. But yeah, definitely not groups, definitely not us. Yeah, so we can see that also in that thing about they can't make it an arbitrary, which they're going to be hooked up on, they can be judicially reviewed, and then that other thing about under no circumstances, in no case may a direction require an individual. That's why they couldn't make the CBC lawful, they couldn't put it into law. Yeah. Right, because of that. Just a little matter of being totally illegal. Totally illegal. Because a mask could be classed as a compulsory treatment, really. Yes, it could. Yes, it could. Yeah, so yeah, they are really in trouble, they're really in trouble. Yeah. But I think the whole thing about, you know, making out that all of these people had to be vaccinated, and all it related to was, you know, because the boss, you know, if you're suing, really, you can say, well, look, they didn't have to do it, all they had to do was put a non-CBC, we don't require it. That's all they had to, by law, that's all they had to do. So, you know, and then on top of that, of course, we've got coercion. So plenty, plenty of grist for the mill. So that's about all I had to talk about tonight, but I thought it was quite a... It was really interesting. It was an insight I enjoyed. Yeah, that's great. Where's that from, Erica? Section 117 from D, from... Oh, the Health Act, Vaccination of Persons for the Prevention of Quarantinable Diseases. Let's see, and just scroll down. Whoops. Where did you get that from? Oh, that's, Erica's put it in the chat. Yeah, the Vaccination of Persons for the Prevention of Quarantinable Diseases and Other Diseases and the Adoption of Any Other Measure for the Prevention... What part of the Health Act, Erica? 11, section 117 D. 117 D, it looks like a new one, 117. OK, that's further down, I'll have to find the Health Act again. Looks like they've put it in. Sneaky buggers. But then you... But it's individual, it's individual, but... Perhaps it's regular. Yeah, like if you won't get it, you'll just stay in quarantine, I'd say. Yeah, and if you can't be subjected to a compulsory treatment, then... No, you can't. You must have to opt in, eh? Yeah, you must have to decide it's for your own good if you want to get out and about again. Yeah. Where's it gone? Got that sorted. Good on you, Lynette. Heard of those cats, did you? I can't find my bit where I can have a look. I could always have a go, Liz, if it's... Yeah, if you can get the Health Act up and find that 117, that'd be good. Okay, if you want to... Oh, what's that? The Governor-General may, from time to time by order in Council, make such regulations as may, in his opinion, be necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the provision of this Act and for all or any of the following purposes. Oh, right, okay, thank you. Can you... Oh, I can't do it, can I? Because you... It's your one. Oh, no, no, that's you doing that? Or has that someone else done that? The Health Act? Someone's popped it up? I've got it. Yeah, you've got it? I haven't got the whole thing and it's telling me to wait. Oh, yeah, it can wait. Are you sure somebody else didn't put it up? Because mine would usually come up. Oh, I've probably had it up on one of mine. Yeah, you can just stop screen share if you want, if you want me to go find it. Yeah, I'll do that. Oh, I think someone popped it in the... Erica's popped it in the chat, has she? Whoopsie, don't want the whole thing. Oh, yeah, there we go. Go to the contents and find 117. Okay. Regulations. Okay, these are regulations made under it. Now, remember, regulations have to be consistent. Well, why am I saying remember? This is what you get all the laws for. Regulations have to be consistent with the Act itself. So, D, the vaccination... Ah, the Governor-General doesn't make such regulations. But the Governor-General doesn't make any regulations about the vaccination of persons for the prevention of quarantine. They didn't do it. Because this, as we can see, they shoved it all onto the plate of employers. Because they've got their management of persons with or suspected of having infectious diseases, including persons subject to an urgent public health order or a court order. Yeah, yeah, so the Governor-General may do that from time to time, by the look of things. But I don't think the isolation, disinfection, and treatment of people suffering from an infectious disease for the prevention of quarantineable diseases. They probably could, but I guess that a regulation couldn't be... Yeah, you'd have to opt in. You'd have to opt in. Oh, yeah, so it's that situation. I reckon, I reckon. Because it can't be. If they say, you know, treatment cannot be compulsory. That's what the Act says. And that fits in with, you've got the right to refuse it. You've got the right to refuse it under the Bill of Rights Act. Cool, that's really good. That's really good. Really good. What about the thing they're talking about, extending the COVID nonsense for another two years? Well, this is what I was saying to somebody. Someone said, oh, they said they were going to get rid of it and repeal it, but now they're going to leave it till 2024. And I said, well, this is why we've got to start the reviews. We've got to start the judicial reviews. Yeah. No. Yeah. Absolutely. Because they have no intention of letting this go until they can get as many people under their evil spell as they can. Because I think, you know, that must be something going into people's heads as well. Yeah. To keep getting it, to keep going back and getting more. Yeah. Yeah. The TV. What was that? Who said that? I said the TV. That's what's getting into people's heads. Yeah. Yeah. They're silly enough to watch it, eh? Yeah, they don't. Yeah. Rightio, has anybody got any questions or comments tonight? Alicia said she knows people who've had four and five. Oh, my goodness. Oh, blimey. Yeah, well, you know, my daughter's not very well at the moment because her son brought something back from school. And I, you know, I think people are probably starting to get jabbed. Their kids are getting jabbed and they're shedding stuff. I agree, yep. Nasty. Yeah. No, we, and then I saw a report from, oh, hi, Adriane. Adriane would like to have a question or a chat. Yeah, you can unmute and go for it when you're ready, Adriane. Hi, everyone. Hi. Change the subject completely. I just want to talk about someone that works really, really hard and that's probably one of Liz's right-hand people. And I just want to say a very, very big happy 50th birthday to Erica. Oh, yes. Today, yes. And Irva, she'd probably shake me, but I'm down in Taronga and I'm on Zoom and you can't. And I hope you have a lovely day tomorrow. And she's not the best because she's fairly under the weather, but I just want to thank you for all the work you do. And I hope everyone celebrates tonight and wishing her a happy birthday. Thank you very much, Adriane. Yep, happy birthday, Erica. We've got a fantastic person that keeps us all socially on an even keel. Yeah, you're right, Adriane. You know, we've got to celebrate our work, even though sometimes it's like, oh. Never ending. It is, it is. And sometimes it feels like a great big, a great big mountain to climb. Yeah, it is. And then we've got to remember people's birthdays and say, you know, we were all born for this time. You know, this time, a certain number of years ago, the angels sent to Erica. They did. And it's interesting what you learn through life. I couldn't be prouder of being part of a union and on Zoom and working with amazing people, being unemployed and feeling like I'm needed somewhere is amazing. And Erica's worked all day today with the union on her birthday. And, you know, we're just really grateful. And the more people we can tell and, you know, get on. And I think it's coming back to having our own plan again. And like someone just put on there, nice to talk about these things with everyone else. You know, we've all had hard weeks. I've had a crap week with my family and we're not alone. And this is where it comes back to, you know, that grassroots being real. We've got a community that's evolving and we're all family. And Erica, you are family. You know, you're the friend I choose to be in my family. So, you know, and Liz, you're a racing angel. And Erica, what you do, I mean, Emma, what you do on, you know, the technical side. I just, you know, I ring up some people and help on the other side. And then there's Carol and accounts. And, you know, we've all just pulled together and we've got a neat team of people. And, you know, often when you talk to people, everyone's so grateful. So spread the word. Let's build this union. We're changing history. We are whipping some severe bottoms of big corporations. And, you know, and I think, you know, it's just it's just so huge. And the more people we meet, it's like, well, you'd be part of the union. And Dora's come on board and man, she's a weapon on her own. It's like if she was a cowgirl, she'd be double-barreled with guns doing a line of shooting. She's amazing. You know, and I think it's a neat community. And I'm just I'm I'm really happy to call my clan, you know, the number eight union, my clan that I choose. And I'm very proud and have not had such satisfaction, job satisfaction in a long time helping people. And I think we all probably feel the same. We're all grateful that Liz, you've got a message from God to come and help out and help us. And, you know, I just I just think let's celebrate everyone when it comes, because often, you know, we're not alone and here we are together. So there you go. There's Miss Bell. Thank you, Adrienne. Thank you very, very much. You do a great job, too, Adrienne, of all the emails and all the stuff that I don't even know you do. But yeah, you do a great job. Very much appreciated. And did you want to talk a little bit about donations, Liz? Oh, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I was getting all, um. Serious. Very wide about lovely things being said. Yeah, very nice. Yeah, you know, especially, guys, we were never, it was never them and us in terms of the bosses. Of course, we're against the corporations. They're just soulless. And the HR hags. Sorry, can't forgive them either. But, um, but generally, you know, the little, the little, they just got, they just got mixed up. Of course, people like Lone Star, the gym and everything, they were so much, the gym stayed open, especially to help the kids on the streets, right? The kids who had nothing. Nowhere to go except for, um, except for that gym. A lot of them, you know, um, and, um, and then, of course, um, people like Alan Hulse, you know, he sees that, the wreckage that has been wrought by all of this as well. You know, in the, um, he, he comes across a lot of people in a lot of, uh, situations that are not only, um, not only, um, have been bullied for years, but now when this has come along, that it's even worse, right? So, um, yeah, the, um, but, but we've got to remember that we've got to keep our small businesses going, we've got to support them. And we've always, um, you know, the, the leader for WorkSafe, that was my effort to try and, you know, give, give you, give you guys a bit of encouragement or, so we're supposed to be talking about money, aren't we? Right. So all of you, all of you people have joined up as union members, of course, you're doing your bit, you're putting, you're putting it in and keep it and helping the union grow is a very important thing. But if, um, there's going to be a note, and I don't know if, um, um, Emma's put it up yet, um, a little, a little, hopefully with a few bells and whistles saying, hey, don't forget to give us a donation, especially if you're not a union member, because, you know, if you've come on and you're looking at site, um, you're, you're possibly, um, either not, um, not employed and so you don't feel like you really need to at the moment or you can't afford to, um, or you're, maybe you've got, you know, maybe you've got a business that's still going and, um, or you want to think about, um, having a go at, um, you know, support the judicial review process that, that, um, the union's going to help me get along through, um, and, you know, these sorts of insights and that, that, um, people who come onto the Zooms and listen to, um, other people talk and listen to me talk and get, get inspired or get, get an idea about how they might, um, move on. Um, you know, can you, can you give us a wee donation? It doesn't matter if it's a big lot or a little lot, we don't mind, right? And, um, the, um, it would just be, uh, you just find the, um, the bank account number, which is now back on there again, and, um, and just put your name in a donation and that'd be great. So, and if you can let others know too, you know, because it was 18,000 people over in, in, uh, section 83 and, um, and they need to know too, those people there, because I think a lot of them will pick up, you know, will, will want to pick up things again. Uh, I went through a lot of, um, Zooms with people. Yeah. Yeah. Because I've, I've written a bit of a longer blurb today that it started off about this long and then it went to about this long, kind of honoring, yeah, what you and Forrest have built and, um, how, you know, yeah, 50% of the union staff are volunteers at the moment, which is, which is cool, but, um, yeah. Sorry, just a suggestion. Why don't you do, um, another Liz Dunn piece and, um, ask for some donations on there or, you know, where you've got a wider viewer reach and where, um, you might hit a soft spot of someone with lots of money, because there's only about 18 of us here and I don't know if anyone's got any money. No, that's right, yeah, like you say, you know, it's about, yeah, it's about ideas and, and brainstorming a bit, yeah, just to, yeah, sort of come up with some ideas. Um, yeah, I did actually think about a style of raffle that I did for a club once was raffling a beast, actually, ready for the freezer and that, that did really well. Yeah, we sold it for $20 a ticket, um, and, yeah, but I don't know. We can, we can tell that Emma lives in the country, eh? Yeah. I love it, you know, I think there might be a new piece of legislation that makes it illegal. I was gonna say, but, you know, if we somehow, we could craft it that, you know, we've got some very good legal minds here, so. Yeah, well, I'm, I'm, I'm thinking that there would, there would be no reason why, really. You could, yeah, even the, um, like I, I ran loads of raffles for different sorts of organisations I've been in and, and I remember, I remember once, uh, with Glendale and Huntly or something, and, uh, we took all of the, we sold all of these tickets and then I thought, oh, you pull them all apart and you fold them all up and then you take them down to the police station. I said, no, no, no, that's not how you do it. I'm not doing that. Oh, they have something like a, you know, some balls or something, I don't know how they do it, but it was something a little less, uh, basic than that. But, yeah, I, I don't think there's any problem with it. I, I, I think it would probably be good. Um, I think if you, um, you know, if you ran something like a lotto, that wouldn't be, um, acceptable. I think up to a thousand dollars, um, used to be the limit that you could, you didn't have to get a permit or anything. Only, you know, prizes up to a thousand dollars and we used to keep them to that. So, you know, you could have two half-piece, I know, I don't know what a piece costs these days, a couple of thousand, I would have thought. Well, if you, if you were to buy it at supermarket prices and, and add everything up you got, it would come to probably between five and seven thousand dollars. Yeah. But when you don't do some research, I reckon, you know, you've got the idea, I'm sure it's not, not for nothing. Nobody's ideas and, um, you know, uh, for nothing, I find. Um, you know, it wasn't, it wasn't until Erica said to me yesterday, um, oh, what about, um, these groups, you know, they're not under the schedule, are they? And I was, they are, but what is it about them? And there we are. So interesting. Yeah, very good. So, anybody's got any ideas, um, info at numbereight.org.nz. Um, feel free to email us if there's something you can think we can do that you don't want to say on here. Yeah, well, the thing is, even though there's only a few of us watching, it's got, it's been recorded, and what happens is people, and we don't know that there's only, I mean, we don't know how many people are watching online, um, uh, the, um, they get watched at other times, you know, seven o'clock in the evening on a, on a summer's night is probably a little bit, a little bit early, but anyway. Need a video that could be shared on other platforms. Yeah, I thought about actually, um, yeah, just be a matter, Liz, of what, what you think would be appropriate, really, because I can easily edit these, these zones, um, but, yeah, maybe we need to do something separately or do, yeah, do a Liz gum. That would be amazing about the union. That would be really good. Well, when somebody was, uh, somebody was asking me about, it wasn't a union thing, but, um, and she said, oh, I used to follow you on, on section 83, um, and I said, oh, well, I'm president of the, of the, and I gave it the full name, and I said, you know, come along to the Zoom and be a member, join and become a member, and she said, oh, yeah, I will. So, um, you know, it needs to, people need to remember us and, um, and come back. And yeah, Liz gum, she'd be interested in the judicial review. I reckon, yeah, she, well, I'll get her, I mean, she's a lawyer, I'll get her help as well. Yeah, she could put, she could talk about the fact that, you know, with the help of the union, I'm going to do the judicial review and, um, yeah, and talk about it. Yeah, that would be quite cool. Yeah, and say, come and join them, and that's the way, you know, you don't, you don't have to join a union, just make a donation to it. Mm, yep, sounds good. Which, of course, keeps our union going, because it's a union bank account, it's not going into my account. No, and all the fees and all the money goes back into the members. It doesn't go into buildings or artwork or, or, or, it's, there'll be weekends for, it might go into beast, but that's okay. Yeah, no, we've got the beast. We don't, yeah, so, because we, we've got the animals, so we just need to sell the tickets. And, and we need a butcher. Would we need a butcher? Yeah, I've already got that. I could already organise that. I already know who would do it. Yeah, we could have flammies and jerky. Yeah, sorry all you people who, um, aren't eating. Yeah, vegetarians. Yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, it's all for a good cause. Yeah. Yeah, fantastic. Stop it. So, $20 ticket, yeah, no piddling around. I love it. I'm getting more and more. I'm getting keen. I'm getting keen. Yeah, there we go. Yes, yes, yes, Dora. Yeah, I think we go, because I did it for one of our horse clubs and yeah, we, we, we made enough out of it that we paid for the animal, paid for the home kill and still made about three grand. I think it was, it was really worth doing. Yeah, it wasn't just a little, you know, $100 thing. It was, it was really worth doing. Yeah. So, if we could do it without getting ourselves in trouble. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's fine. I'll, you know, I'll have a look. Yeah, cool. Yeah, sounds good. Yeah, I love it. I just love it, because, you know, our members, well, I've got nothing against us townies, you know. I'm not discriminating against anybody. Some of us have to live in the city or live in somewhere else, but, you know, I come from Huntly, so. Very country, yeah. On country, on country. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Honour, that's awesome. So, anybody got any more questions? I think we're done, aren't we, for now? That's really good. Yeah, I think we are. So, good night all. Yeah, thanks for coming along. Get some rest, Erica, and have enjoyed the rest of you. Yeah. No more, no more emails, no more. No, no more looking at union stuff. No. That's a day. All the whole weekend. You've got the whole weekend off, Bill. Yeah. Awesome. Everything can wait. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Very good. See you all later. Bye. Have a good evening. See you.