N8WUNZ 20230201(W) Pike River & Aberfan Govt actions before & after - Parallels to handling of Injec

This transcription is a conversation between two individuals discussing various topics, including the Aberfan and Pike River disasters, regulatory capture, and the role of Andrew Little, a former trade union official and current Minister of Health. They highlight the similarities between the two mining disasters and the government's response to them, as well as the impact of regulatory capture on these situations. They also discuss Andrew Little's background and his involvement in the mining industry. And I'll just do Facebook, and then we'll be all set, hopefully. Do-de-do-de-do, there we go. Oh, hi, Laurie, we haven't seen you for a few weeks. Welcome along, everybody. Thanks for coming along. It's going to be another super interesting chat tonight. Yeah, there's always something super interesting to talk about, and looking at it from a lawful perspective and that kind of thing is, I don't know about anybody else, but I find that so helpful. No, that's Friday, Gabrielle. Yep, that's organised. I spoke with Alan this afternoon, this morning, we were having a meeting about something, and, yeah, he's looking forward to that, and telling us all about, you know, what he's been having with law firms, which is what I'm going to kind of talk about partly tonight in terms of what's called regulatory capture, but that's a little bit down the track. So, the first I want to, hi, Lou, the first I want to review, Aberfan, the Aberfan disaster, then the Pike River disaster, then talk a bit about what is regulatory capture, and try and look at it as what we have in New Zealand, and the reasons why things are very, why we see so much corruption, basically. It's partly to do with the fact that we're a very small country. I'd like to especially look at law firms, and Alan will have more to say about this on Friday night, because he's been getting what's called a SLAP, and I've forgotten what the acronym stands for, but basically it's a sponsorship by corporate lawyers to bring down troublesome advocates, or, not just advocates, but troublesome people who challenge the status quo. Wow, yeah, yeah. So, let's have a look at Aberfan first. I thought, now I've got on my, oh, do you want, hang on, I can, yeah, can you bring up the Aberfan one, or have you got, because I've got a list here. I've got the Aberfan Wikipedia, I've got the Pike River Wikipedia, I've got some pictures of regulatory capture definition. You're more than welcome. Andrew Little is one I really want to talk about. Hello, where have we gone? Yeah, if you want to screen share, Liz, go for it. I've made it so you can screen share. Oh, okay. You're highly organised, as always. Well, I don't know, I've gone off onto the post of attendee now. Where have I gone? Hang on, let's see if I, oh, I'm there, I'm there, it's all right. Okay, so I come over here first, don't I, back onto the screen, and I share screen, and I get the, which one is it? Oh, I hope I've got the right things. Oh, no, that looks like the wrong screen. Hang on, it's this one. It's these ones. Oh, I don't want that other lot. Okay, can you bring it up while I fiddle around with... Yeah, which one would you like? I've got the... I'll just stop sharing. I've got the political aftermath of... I'll see, mine's going to be weird now. It's getting back to the way it was. I just put in the Seatchapithan disaster. Yeah. This is such a shockingly sad story that still, you know, is still there. Yeah, oh, there we go. The mad thing is that you can kind of see archetypes repeating over and over. The main man here is a guy called Robson, Robson, Robin, R-O-B-E-N. He was the, they got, they nationalised the mines in 1947, I think it was. So before that, they were private, right? Yeah, here we go again, here we go, where are we going? Ah, now where have you gone? Oh gosh, yeah, here we go, cool, okay. This is just one website that I found. This is the one I was looking at, I think. Oh, you found the political aftermath, okay. Yeah, it's got some quite good pictures on it, but... Yeah. And it, yeah, basically explains what happened, but is it better to go to something else? No, this is good, this is good. Yeah, because the guys that I was, the guys that I was looking at in their analysis were Martin Jones and Ian McLean. They were the ones who were quoted about, you know, what was the political aftermath. This happened in 1966. What kind of brought it to mind, and I never ignored promptings, was, you know, people who've got kids who are at school who are being told, you can't, you know, the whole of Auckland's a disaster area and you can't bring them back, you know, you can't, they can't go back to school and everything. And it just reminded me of this story. So, it was 9.30, I think, in the morning, and the kids were just getting the roll call. It's a pit village. The pits were up the top of the, on this high ground here. And they had slag, what are known as slag mountains, tailings and, yeah, and chemicals, actually, as well, that they would get, you know, to, they were using. And there was a spring underneath the ground. And they'd had a lot of rain, a tonne of rain. But, you know, that's what Wales is a bit like, a bit rainy. Anyway, they'd had a couple of warnings that this one had started to slip. There was a couple, I don't know if there's an overhead pitching, it might be further down. But it sort of shows, like, two great mountains of the slag. Anyway, it got liquefied, basically, by water in it. And it came down at something like 12 miles an hour. I'll go to the Wikipedia one. Okay. And it was a terrible, terrible thing. Right from the start, the mine people, the mine, the mine, not so much the manager, but the owners were trying to distance, well, not so much the owners, because the state was the owner. They were managing it for the state. They were trying to distance themselves from it. I think people raised, for the families, they raised, can I just get that off? Possibly I can. No, I don't want to do that. Oh, there we go. The families from, you know, this was around the world, I recall it. I was a kid then. From around the world, this was the burial. This is pretty much it today. Can I leave that, move that thing away up there? Yeah, that'll do. Yeah, so the people raised money. People put it all into this trust, and then they wanted, see, there's still two mountains of slag up there. They wanted those moved as well. And the government was saying it's too expensive. And they finally, after a lot of time, they said, okay, we'll move them, but we want to have some money out of the trust. And they took 150,000 pounds out of the trust. That was for the families. The government did. And anyway, they said it was going to cost too much. In the end, it cost something like, they said it was going to cost two million pounds or something. In the end, it cost about 800,000 to get rid of those other two. So, again, complete inflation of what it's going to cost, but really disgusting behaviour by the state. Absolutely disgusting behaviour. And running for cover of all of the state enterprises, right? Like we're getting with the injuries over the COVID, etc. Let's have a quick look. So, anyway, what they talk about, let's see if we can find what they have to say about regulatory capture. Because I know that it is in here somewhere. In this article? Yeah, I think it could be here. If it's headed up that it's the government immediately appointed a tribunal of inquiry. It's a report with unsparing blame for the disaster rests upon the National Coal Board. The legal liability for the National Coal Board to pay compensation for the personal injuries, fatal or otherwise, and damage to property is incontestable and uncontested. But the thing is that we go to, when we get these sort of findings, right? Then the lawyers come crashing in and start to push back, push back. The National Coal Board, you know, they were state-owned mines and it's like the injuries that we're going to see from the and we are seeing from the VACs. They need to be paid for, right? But they'll have all of these lawyers jumping in. But why that is is this thing called regulatory capture. So if you can go down a little bit further. Yeah, we've got the yeah, the tribunal endorsed the comment of oh yeah, that was the guy who stood up for the Aberfan Parents and Residents Association, that was their lawyer. He said they tried to give the impression that the disaster was no more than their fault than you know, the gas man or something like that. Just hold it there for a minute. Through very public attacks on government fuel policy, this was Robins, he was able to portray himself as a defender of the industry and win the support of the unions. Does this sound familiar? This was not a new line for him to take, but Robins was a great PR manipulator and he knew that he was securing his position. Ministers let him stay despite disliking him because they thought he was the only man who could manage the decline of the coal industry and avoid strike action. In effect, Robins behaviour after Aberfan becomes irrelevant to whether he kept his job or not, rather political expediency was the name of the game. Keep going, I'm just trying to find a quote about the idea of the trustees of the disaster fund the government forced them to contribute 150,000 pounds. Now in 1966, or it was about 1968, that was a huge amount of money. They'd been given 1.75 million by people from around the world and in England. They got it back and eventually they got interest paid on it, but I mean in the meantime this is the thing. These things are taking so long because of this whole regulatory capture that goes on. Let's see. Further down we're not going to get it. They must have written a long paper and just a few things were taken out of it that were in the Wikipedia. Let's see if I can find if I can share. Let's go to the Pike River and take it closer to home so we can see what goes on there. It's very very similar and we've heard about Robbins. He was the guy who was they thought that he controlled the unions and he probably did to a certain extent. Not to the extent that we're going to find out in our own New Zealand situation. So have we got the Pike River disaster? Let's have a look at that. Now we're into how many years is it now? It'll be 13 years this year. 2010. Which link would you like Liz? Do you want me to go to Wikipedia? The Wikipedia one. There it is at the bottom. There we go. Now you can see why I'm so interested in these things. The Pike River mine incident ranks as New Zealand's worst mining disaster since 1914 when 43 men died at Ralph's Mine in Huntly which you know is my hometown. They built a a town hall over the top of the mine and it must have been probably in about early 1970s they knocked it down and put a bank in its place. Yeah. Pretty bloody sick actually. The plough is still on the side of the bank but yeah, pretty sick. OK and then we got some other disasters there. There was the 1979 crash of Air New Zealand Flight 901 which we know was the Erebus disaster. There's got some very tricky stuff goes on went on there too about who put them on the wrong track because that was done deliberately. Liz if I can just butt in for a sec. The Erebus investigators were told politically what they were to find at the end of it and it's the only FAA investigation report in history that the investigators refused to sign because I was on a call to the guy. Really? Yeah. They tried to blacken the name of the pilot didn't they? Yeah. But the investigation by Judge Mahon was it? Yeah. He's the one who talked about it being a litany of lies Yeah. What Air New Zealand was saying. And then of course we've got the 2011 Christchurch earthquake and we don't know how much the government had to do with that either. No. Okay so getting back to Pike River Yep. So what happened they were it was explosions on the what was it 20th? Yeah 26th and 28th. The subsequent ones I think it was the 20th 19th November yeah so they could have got them out mine rescue teams went down to try and get them out because they said well what happens when you get a methane explosion it burns off all the methane and so the air is clear right but the police stopped them going in the police stopped them going in I heard they actually poured concrete down the ash down the shaft the air vents Yeah that was a little bit that was a bit later but yeah they were alive but that yeah yeah they were alive um so at the time of the explosion miners and contractors down below two got out so they had 29 killed subsequent explosions on the 24th, 26th and 28th that was so terrible um you know um that happening because they let it all build up again all of the methane of course um then in December 2012 Prime Minister John Key said he would apologise in person to the families of I don't know if he ever did that for the government's weak regulations and inadequate inspection regime in 2017 the government established a new Pike River recovery agency with re-entry expected by March 2019 now what overtook us in 2019 um it reported to the minister responsible for Pike River re-entry Andrew Little I'm going to talk a little bit about Andrew Little um re-entry was expected to cost $23 million over three years, the agency took over the mine from Solid Energy um um Solid Energy must have taken it over, took it over from it was a private mining company uh and they had, and that private mining company was put into um liquidation pretty much which you know what happens when um when companies go into liquidation sometimes they can't pay their bills, in fact the banks get everything and anything left over is for you know people either people's wages or um in this case um compensation for the families of those um miners, so they didn't um they didn't get any um they didn't get any compensation, they weren't going to get anything unless um oh well they should have been able to through um the Health and Safety at Work Act right under section, would have been section 47, up to $3 million each right, they ended up with I think about $110 um for some reason the government wasn't able to say to the company um you've got to pay your bills you've got to pay your compensation to the um you've got to put money aside right, company um to pay fines they let it all be taken by the banks um so they in 2017 um they established a new Pike River recovery agency with re-entry anyway it was expected to cost that um the agency took over the mine uh in February 2021 the Pike River recovery agency reported that it had reached a point 2.2k up the mine access tunnel to the site of a rockfall, this was the furthest point into the mine that the agency planned to go and the work at this point had cost approximately $50 million yeah well I wonder how much of the $50 million was digging and how much of it was paying lawyers and every other hanger on yes that needs to be audited one day on the 23rd of March 2021 the minister responsible for Pike River re-entry Andrew Little stated that it was too hard and too expensive to go any further into the mine so we got echoes of Aberfan right they said it was too expensive to um take those those other hillocks away ah there we go and here we've got um right down to our present time and what we work with all of the time, the accident led to significant changes in occupational safety legislation with the passage of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and the establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand now interesting who have we got as a minister who what was Andrew Little doing I'll see if I can get that screen up because I got his biography is it going to do it um was that on his own website Liz? No it's just a bit of an overview not going to be able to get it sorry it's just an overview of him back at the time of Pike River 2010 he was the he was in I'm not sure what year he entered Parliament it could have been 2011 actually because he was the um secretary of the Engineers and Printers Union which was the union that was in Pike River right they were complaining of gas and they weren't being taken out they weren't being taken out they were complaining about that it was a dangerous mine but because of course he was Labour Party always secretary of the union oh everything's going fine you know nothing to see here here we go thank you very much here we go page so um his former trade union official doesn't say what he was but he was the secretary um and you know my brother was still working down the mine at Huntly and they just had no respect for the man at all he's currently serving as the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations he's also the Minister for the Government Communication Security Bureau and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service now that's interesting because those um well I know the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service is usually the role that the Prime Minister gets okay so I think Hipkins might be a bit of a stoolie out the front um Little was previously Leader of Opposition from 2014 to 2017 oh here we go Little was the National Secretary of New Zealand's largest trade union the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and he was President of the Labour Party from um 2009 to 2011 yes he entered Parliament in 2011 so the year after Pike as the last MP Little served as the Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party from 18th November 2014 until the 1st of August 2017 when he resigned to make way for Jacinda Ardern so this man we gotta keep a real close eye on right he's the Minister for the Spying Agencies that we know are spying on us uh with the formation of the Labour-led coalition government in October 2017 Little was appointed as Minister for Justice so we got these portfolios in 2017 so that was the payoff right he steps aside lets Jacinda in in 2017 he gets Minister of Justice Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Minister in charge of the Government Communications Security Bureau and she mustn't have been smart enough to get them I'd say they must have thought nah nah she's too ditzy cause it's usually the Prime Minister that gets those I think she got something like um ah Culture Minister of Culture or something like that she didn't get anything all she was supposed to be was a pretty face and um batting her eyelids and being on the cover of fancy magazines and impressing the world and apparently New Zealand what a gorgeous sympathetic fantastic for the people person she was ok ah so following the 2020 election just up a bit again please um cause what happened to him in 2020 he left and he was he left justice and workplace safety relations roles so ah he's now got he's now Minister of Health ah the workplace relations and safety roles have gone to um Wood and Wood um I heard today somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but he got appointed to be an MP for Auckland I don't know how you can get to be appointed an MP for Auckland maybe somebody can put us in the in the picture about this because as far as I know people have to be elected um to positions and I don't believe that there's um been any um by-elections for an election for any electorates in um Auckland he's supposed to be helping um the Mayor right ok um yeah so all that's all about his romantic labour past ok um ah well he had a job as a labourer there we go um ah he was 17 yeah well you can bet he that was a holiday job um he noticed that the contractor was working he was working he was deliberately using less than an adequate amount of concrete than the work required ah and he left there at the beginning of 84 upon being accepted to enter university well well well well so what did he study law philosophy and public policy oh what a shame he studied philosophy um so he's a lawyer yep and he was the president of the Victoria University Wellington Students Association who was also down in that um people like um a bit later of course um people like um Hipkins and um not not Jacinda she was um she went to so it must have been when she went to Wellington that she got starry eyed about being a um becoming a comrade career with the trade unions he took up a job as a lawyer with the engineers and forerunner of the NPU ah his work including ACC and employment law issues ok so quite amazing um quite amazing that the man has really um you know with that sort of background that he they don't seem to know anything about the um you know what the obligations are under the Health and Safety at Work Act he's been you know he's been around but but you know just expedient it's not expedient oh Tracy Tracy says centralising government with oversight over the Auckland mayoral choice by parliament what's that um let's see what Tracy had to say about that so I was asking about the um what's the story with him being appointed an MP um the slippery slope towards communism oh he's um sorry it's not him he's appointed Wood Wood so Wood um the darling of the unions I think we've got a picture of him on our union website with a with a unionist ah trade unionist down in Waihi when we went down to that little knees up down there not that they wanted to talk to us right so if we can have some I'd really like to see if you can go and look for the definition of regulatory capture and sort of try and put some of these stories together capture definition click that one okay now over on the side here we've got some pictures there's some good ones that sort of illustrate it but what it says is regulatory capture refers to the actions by interest groups when this is successful at influencing the staff or commission members of the regulator so remember who's the regulator of the Health and Safety at Work Act it's WorkSafe okay so who's been pushing WorkSafe to act so ridiculously yeah it's a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity policy maker or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial ideological or political interests of a minor constituency okay now the minor constituency in in Aberfan was the mine the mining interests and the unions actually even though those men of course were not I'm talking about the tops of them you know we're talking about the heads of these things not the workers themselves in Pike River it was again you know it was again you know keeping it quiet because it didn't look good for the union to have unsafe workplaces you know where they were supposed to have so much power and then I think you know wow what is it with our country he's our Minister of Treaty Negotiations any clues guys right what's the minor constituency okay political interests such as a particular geographic area, an industry, a profession or an ideological group now the ideological group well as we keep saying all of this stuff is to do with the ideology of socialism the group the idea that the group the interest of the group can overcome the interest of the individual. In law they can't and when we use our our our constitution and I'll call it that because we just all we need to do is put it together in one cohesive document like the Americans have done with theirs and we're away and I'm part of a group called private agenda sorry not private agenda, personal agenda which is working on not marrying up but using the experience of the Americans to put your constitution and your bill of rights together using what we've got in New Zealand because in 1986 we actually had a constitution act and it didn't get done then it sort of got swept under the carpet but what we got in 1988 of course was all of our ancient laws which we can knit together but there's been so much strife and division about the Treaty of Waitangi and all the rubbish about it being part of the constitution and the other one the 1835 being part of the constitution which is rubbish they're nothing like a constitution and they actually I think from our discussion last time I was talking with Gabriel then actually and saying that the American constitution was based on the 1688 the man who was behind a lot of that was a man called Thomas Payne. I gave a couple of books that names books well one's a pamphlet one's called Common Sense the other one is the Rights of Man but he also went and he was a he was a customs officer Thomas Payne English customs officer but he from Islington in the UK and so he's back and forth to England and he said Thomas Payne scorned as what's it say there something in terms of an unwritten constitution oh yeah scorned as something, contradiction in terms sorry, scorned as a contradiction in terms, an unwritten constitution and refuted Edward Burke's argument for monarchies from our forefathers. Now this is really interesting because this is what's being attempted in the coup here. A monarchy put aside the English one and replaced it with a Maori one. That's long and short of it and what Thomas Payne had to say about was that the vanity and presumption of governing from beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies okay so you know the idea that you have a right to have a place in governing because of who your ancestors were it's what according to Payne is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies and I wholeheartedly support him in that. So you can tell that I'm absolutely against any form of governance where people are not elected but appointed and especially if they're appointed not on merit even but on who their ancestry or their whakapapa is. So if we can have a look at some of those regulatory capture and just sort of put together how it looks yeah there's some pictures on it Emma Is it gone? I have trouble finding the mute button which is a lot of people are probably quite happy about that but are the pictures on this one or shall I go If you go back to the top again oh where is it there was a kind of a if you have a look there there's some quite good little pictures there that we can have a look at if you go down to some cartoons which sort of gives people something to think of in in terms of their you know thinking about this because I was thinking a picture is worth a thousand words oops so regulatory capture occurs when regulatory agencies become dominated by the very industries that they are charged with regulating so you know the industry is all industry in New Zealand at the moment right but the the boss when we've heard what's his name Klaus Schwab talk about their stakeholder stakeholder capitalism they say is a form of in private public ownership is a form of regulatory capture because you can't you can't actually the regulator is overtaken by oops music on here we go he says now this is we're more this is kind of an American look at it because they talk about lobbyists but we don't we don't talk about lobbyists but we have them you know we have them and we're supposed to you know who was giving money to the big lots of money to the National Party and to the and to the Labour Party the Chinese were giving loads of money so the lobbyists sometimes really really big global groups you know the globalists are trying to capture all of our form of government and globalism with a Chinese Chinese social credit system yep yeah so he says why do we need a crowbar to review regulations each one has a lobbyist wrapped around it yep yeah so what's it look like in New Zealand I think that it's got it's made up if you like of that revolving door let's have a look at this one down here too Emma with the strange looking people on it no not the one with the picture what's that look like oops gone sorry I was just making it bigger oh it's not going to bring it up hang on I'll go back if you're having problems because the wolves keep eating the sheep what's it say corporations own the government they need to be regulated by whom? by the government that's that's it isn't it that's it but we have we have ways of stopping this we have ways of stopping it so what's happened over the last couple of years I mean this has been going on this is the Food and Drug Administration let's have a look at these ones because this is quite pertinent remember if everybody has seen or if they haven't seen it's worth a watch the what is the R&D research and development guy for Pfizer out on a date what he thinks is a date and he's telling this guy that oh yeah we're developing it's not like gain of function but it is really we don't want to call it that but it is and he talks about the revolving where the Food and Drug Administration and the pharmaceutical industry are tied up together I think there's an important yeah yeah you're right Tracy the Boston Consulting Group is a big player in New Zealand there's also some and I was researching the other day and I've forgotten the name of them there's also a huge PR company that is in New Zealand that has you know as a global PR company that's also been pouring lots of money into this so yeah so you've got the pharmaceutical industry you've got the pharmaceutical lobby who else have you got that you know further down the pecking line you've got the actual pharmacies, the doctors the hospitals et cetera et cetera and the people who are the pen pushers in these tend to get jobs up in the industry or up in the they start to move up the government ladder because all of our public hospitals of course that's how you move up the public services to get jobs closer and closer and closer to the top but if you're taking money to push either I don't even know if they see themselves as straight out drug pushers but they push the crap that they and believe their own rubbish that they know everything about health when it seems they know very very little they know how to do prescribing but even in that case they they are very I was looking again at the details of the evidence that they were putting forward for why they didn't want they didn't want this nurse talking trying to put people off having the vax and they said this was back actually very very early before the rollout so this was in December of 2020 in January of 2021 they're describing about how they were trying to this was a rest home the rest home was encouraging the staff and residents to be vaccinated they admit it and they say so then I thought I'll go and have a look and see what was being said in 2021 about the vax what was being said they didn't actually issue their first information about the vax until the roll well about safety until February I think it's February the 3rd of 2021 right that's when the first rollout came out for you could get it if you were you know up to I think they tried they went for the old people first right so these this rest home was getting all geared up so they say oh you know we were trying to you know push they don't say push but you know encourage it with our staff and our residents in early 2021 well I went and had a look and you know how they always talk about well we're taking our advice from the Ministry of Health and MedSafe so I went to the Ministry of Health website I look on that I find the it's quite hard to find but they did a report right up until about September I think 2022 about adverse reactions right but they didn't even start to talk about anything about nobody knew anything about the vaccine until it was rolled out basically and what it says is it has all of that stuff in it about this is a this is a what you call it this is a you know what's the name of it provisional this is a provisional and they say we haven't tested it on pregnant women and nursing women we've tested it on rats that's all and they say you know they talk about the pericarditis and that was report number one they had this information from the third of the third of yeah February 2021 was report number one I think it goes up to about report number 20 something and they take it through to 2022 so they put this report out about adverse reactions and reporting of adverse reactions right up they started it right back then and all of those people that you took your information to and said look at this and they said well we're just following the government advice they hadn't obviously looked at the advice because then they would have known what the hell you were talking about yeah you know people were taking that information and they were saying they were looking at and saying well we're just following if they weren't even looking at it actually well they might have looked at it and and thought oh this is rubbish this is misinformation but that was the exact same information that was on the Ministry of Health websites that they were supposed to look at these people in that were in the rest homes right the residents in the rest homes it says don't give it to old frail people unless it's absolutely necessary don't give it to anybody with immune immune compromised and immune compromised of course if you're having any treatment for cancer at all you're immune compromised because it kills off your healthy white blood cells as well right they also it's also seen in those reports that came out and to a third of February 2021 that they hadn't done testing any testing at all on whether it was carcinogenic or what's the other what's the other one carcinogenic or whether it did anything to your genes whether it poisons your genes so that they will be changed so that they would cause cancers and they said they were following advice they'd never looked at it the lying toads the lying toads yes Lynette they're trying now the climate change bullshit well they're not they're going to have to face up to the fact they can they can go on with the climate change bullshit a whole lot of people aren't going to take much notice of that now but once we once the cases start to once they businesses start to have to pay up they're not going to be very pleased they're not going to be very pleased at all there was a big case in decided in the States I think a couple of days ago and they paid not only the people who I think the people who who got because they refused to take the jab got $25,000 each it was a big case and the ones who got the jab but you know and still stayed on the job they still got a $3,000 payment as well each out of it so absolutely you know this coercion and illegal and it was in an employment court surprise surprise surprise surprise but the guy was saying at the end he didn't think that and some of you will have seen this because he passed it on to me but he didn't think that the government could be held to account because they had signed up with Pfizer to give them unity no there is all sorts of things in contract law that says if there's misrepresentation etc etc that they can't be held to that contract right so I think in the end our governments will sue Pfizer because they're going to they're going to have to provide for the people who have been hurt and ACC is not providing. Now the other big movers and shakers in this thing are lawyers and I think that tomorrow Friday night when Alan comes on we'll talk a lot more about the role of lawyers and all of this and the profession and the and the courts and the courts okay so anybody got stuff to say questions to ask or just regarding the the schools and I think you were going to talk a little bit about that oh yeah we covered that already well to a certain extent that's what sort of got me on to the idea about Aberfan and I yeah I think the question was if your school is not in a disaster it's not a disaster it's just a declaration of a disaster area the problem is that I suppose I suppose private private schools private places could possibly open up and say well you know I need to keep my business going I'm nowhere near any streams I'm not on the side of a cliff da da da yeah that was my question yeah you know they might face they might face push back but it's hard to say it's really hard to say because generally the the first responders are damn good they do a good job right but I don't know who's the top man or woman who warded it the other thing is of course that they might they're great the rank and file are great but remember White Island remember what happened there they weren't allowed to take off from the bloody helicopter pads and go and rescue them the private people had to go and do that that was so bad eh that was another orchestrated litany of lies yeah Iona the secretary of education is yeah but what has that got to do with the disaster I mean how can she declare disaster areas interesting if it's her I would say I would say go and open up I mean the thing is that you know I would say you know well what's your reasoning Iona okay what's your reasoning girl they're not they're not they're not in any danger yeah it's just your shaking your regulatory high horse and freaking people out thinking oh we're going to get locked down again yeah well and this is the thing you know I was watching what's his name oh you know he's on Fox News anyway we're saying they finally dropped the so called emergency in the US finished yeah okay but she's got a big panic about you know because it's going to be anybody who sees anything about the Obamas right that might not be suitable but it will be a terrible racist to understand that yeah people are saying it anyway so it's all good yeah well they're right you know it's running the same because they can't say anything about people you know Biden you can't say anything about him being doddery well you can say doddery but the big thing is to say anything about people of colour must be racist yeah yeah I thought I thought I'd share something that you might find quite interesting when you were mentioning about ACC you know the lack of proper treatment of people who have been vaccine injured because regardless of anyone's opinion about the vaccine like it's a medical treatment and some people are going to be injured by medical treatment even Panadol can seriously hurt people so I actually know I actually won't disclose who they are because mind you I know I'm in good company here but I know someone who works at ACC who was at the contact centre and people were getting in touch with him about like vaccine injuries that they had suffered and the way that ACC is treating these is they're considering them treatment injuries which you're like okay that seems like a reasonable pathway to you know put these incidents down the trouble is is that when ACC their approach to treatment injuries for whatever reason you can kind of understand why but they withhold care until it can be definitively and conclusively proven that the injury in question was the result of the treatment and exactly exactly yeah any other injury that's fine no problem but if it's an injury that occurred to you while receiving medical treatment it's not an injury to a medical treatment all of a sudden all these gears have to turn and the burden of proof no one wants to link these injuries to the vaccines and it's horrific because people are really suffering and they're not getting the care that they deserve from ACC because of this bureaucratic drama just like what we talked about last time with Sue Gray being proven right in court in respect to the Medsafe the Medicines Act issue with the vaccine rollout and the judge saying well Sue technically you do have the law on your side but as a judge I don't feel comfortable making a decision that would have such widespread social consequence and so I'm going to just pretend I didn't and that's functionally what the ruling said and one just last quick thing within my two minutes thank you that I thought you might be interested in as well Liz was just a slight callback to what we talked about earlier not just with parliamentary supremacy but specifically Parliament's I think very nasty habit of retrospective lawmaking a couple people in the chat made a very reasonable comment which is like saying it's like trying to get insurance after the fact you really shouldn't but it's something the government has done before what's quite interesting about the way that they've done it before is it was in a way that I think most of us might even be inclined to think it's fair enough in terms of what the outcome was but the idea that Parliament could give themselves rights retrospectively is really troubling so the issue in question and I'd love to email you some information about it because I think you could make a lot more sense of it than I could but the family carer saga essentially people who may have been entitled to receive a government stipend for caring for disabled family members weren't and technically the law didn't give them the right to collect the stipend of a carer and this became a big issue because I think judges were making the decision it was a matter of case law rather than actual an act of Parliament deciding this effectively judges decisions were making the law as it went along and then Parliament realized this is really bad people need to be getting paid even if they're caring for their loved ones they're still carers and so Parliament wrote an act that gave them the right retrospectively to have paid those carers for years and this wasn't made very public I think because it the idea of retrospective law making is honestly insane like on the extreme end this could be the equivalent of Parliament making something illegal yesterday that wasn't and then charging people for it it's insane and thankfully they've for the most part you could say they've never done that but what about the people who got prosecuted for breach of lockdown between when the lockdown started and April and again I only wanted to bring that up not as any kind of like I was right about I'm concerned I'm among friends here but I only wanted to bring that up to show I think that this is the depth of the issue that we need to contend with when it comes to parliamentary supremacy the principle is you don't make well you can't be prosecuted and they can't take advantage of something that they didn't do if they then correct it later okay so the people who were disadvantaged before if they'd been this is the Fitzgerald and Muldoon case right oh that's a good one aye yeah well the thing is that the courts make those decisions and that thing about people caring for their family that came out of court decisions that came out of case law because the courts actually the courts it was the judges decision actually whether the what happened with Sue's case right the court had that had that because in actual fact they could have relied on the law they could have relied on the that you know you can't make law retrospectively okay they could have relied okay whether she argued it though this is the other thing a lot of things don't get go the way you want them in court because the pleadings aren't right yeah you didn't put it to the judge and this is what I was saying before the it's an adversarial system the judge is not there to favour one side or the other it's the one who's in trouble with some common law jurisdictions isn't it as opposed to civil law it's adversarial as opposed to inquisitorial yeah but inquisitorial is where you get the judge making all of the decisions and not and there's no jury of 12 you know because we need to have that's the other thing we need to have that we need to have we need to have our jury trial by jury for everything I heard that jurors in New Zealand I learned while I was at Otago and I was mortified but if one of the 12 jurors disagrees that's not enough that actually needs to be more than one which I was quite concerned by that's not correct either is it okay we better talk all done bring bring Jeff you're up next Jeff you've only got two minutes two minutes Jeff very prompt very quick retrospective legislation is of course like backdating a car insurance cover note to ensure that a claim is paid when in fact the policy wasn't enforced that's the principle it's the it's contract it's contract now also although ACC is an insurance company of sorts ACC also has insurance which you may or may not know and they've got everything with all the bells and whistles and so I still feel that personal injury claims using public liability insurance and the like I can hear you are a viable proposition now I have tried filing a personal injury claim against where New World and the cops and I'm not getting very far because I am not an insured under their policy so what it needs and this is such a nod nod wink wink Gabriel you might be interested in doing this it needs somebody to file a case against either the cops or New World which I can provide all the evidence for to force an issue here the cops as you all know I think paid out six million dollars over the last ten years in compensation but they have never made a single claim on their public liability insurance this is something that I am still working on but there is a whole dam waiting to burst with these personal injury claims we are talking about 8000 flood claims for what happened in Auckland that is just a drop in the bucket compared to what is out there and as I said I think it was before I spoke to my doctor I said what happens if somebody wants to make a claim against your professional indemnity insurance or I have to notify my insurance company and help the person to file the claim this is what it says in the cops well it says in all these public liability policies that the insured which is cops, counsel, whoever must notify their insurer upon receipt of any communication claim or suit claim or suit so you don't have to file a suit you file a claim which is a request for money so this is an area that as I say it is wide open if we can just get somebody I'll do the private prosecution but I just need help you've got to always remember standing okay these prosecutions or claims etc. somebody was talking about wanting to go after before the door closed on the baby will guardianship matter because that it closed yesterday taking a case but the people who'd have to take the case are the people who the harm was suffered by which were the parents and they're not interested in doing it you know. I am willing to bring the case. No you can't you can't this is the thing here you have to get the person harmed I am I was harmed by the cops you can yeah that's what I'm talking about I'm willing to do it but I need to get the documentation get the ducks in a row this is where I've got problems in the past I mean I've got chapter and verse on the cops malicious prosecution and all the rest I think as Gabriel says it has to be private prosecution in that case but in terms of these personal injuries I think the easier way especially to try the cases out is to well for a start with the injuries I think you could try the you could personally sue if you're injured go to the small dispute tribunal and try a claim there that can be that can be up to $150,000 I think and it's cheap yep for damages for damages they've got they've got to pay it some way okay the other one is a claim to the disability health and disability commissioner and in that case you don't pay anything because they provide the investigator and everything right it's like the human rights the human rights commissioner complaints to those and also the privacy commissioner that's the one if you've had your privacy you know and I think everybody who's doctor shared their information with the government might have a claim there as well because you've got to fit it in because it's the the privacy act is about state agencies it's not about you can't say oh well my my boss put my name up on the board at work as one of the UNVACs no you can't go to the privacy commissioner over that because your boss is not an agent of the state they acted like they were but they're not technically for that act okay are we going for time the dispute tribunal maximum is 30,000 actually it's not 100 okay okay so I mean you know quite a few people would be happy to have 30,000 for nothing anyway I would go for that if I could make a case for the malicious prosecution, humiliation all these other things that I've covered well I think it would be worth a go going to the to the dispute tribunal you can only try absolutely this is the problem I don't mind appearing and speaking on my own behalf but it's putting the documentation together you may be interested to know that the human rights tribunal have turned down my application for a lawyer I got very interested in that from them, they provide their own advocates yeah but they refused anyway that's my ding dong we got Michael Michael two minutes starting from now yes sorry I was a bit slow putting the hand up I couldn't find it do you mention White Island where the police overstepped the mark trying to stop people getting rescued under the sort of health and equity act I don't think it was the police I think it was the what do they call themselves civil defence civil defence we saw the same thing with the Kaikoura earthquakes a bunch of farmers were trying to get back to their families and their farms and civil defence refused to let them through and my understanding of the situation is they nearly had a full blown confrontation but one of the farmers there on the farm just around the corner suggested that they built their own road around them so that's what they did they had the gear and they just built their own road around the road block good on them good on them we're seeing this overreach with health and safety Nazis who don't have the expertise to make the call people prepare to accept the higher element of risk in an emergency situation and they're just applying stupid measures like if someone wants to get to their family unless they're definitely going to get killed for sure on the way there, there's really not going to be a lot of stopping I don't know if they're so keen on letting people take lethal injections surely they can let them risk their lives in saving their families nobody should be allowed to stop them and I don't think in law they can I don't think they can. They think they can and they think they can do a whole lot of stuff but it's because people have let them get away with it so much of it is perception isn't it just the perception of what people think that they're allowed to be told and not told to do am I allowed? the killing effect yeah okay are we all good then people? I think we might yep I reckon that's awesome Liz that's fantastic that was such an interesting session I hope everybody enjoyed that yeah well I hope people just realise yeah there is a lot, there is a big if you like, it's not a conspiracy because it's a theory but it is a conspiracy to keep the power amongst those top whether it be you know and especially having links into government that way there is but we don't have to be afraid because we know the law is on our side absolutely and I think judging by things like how quickly they open the schools up you know I think there is a lot more pushback than what we realise so did they have they opened the schools? yep this morning because I was giving people a bit of a ruck up yesterday about being all scared about that and I said you've just got to complain you know you've just got to yeah someone was saying, someone was remarking on a thread about oh they you know now send them to school they can vaccinate them without your permission I said no they can't, get down there and make it bloody clear to the school there's going to be a hell of a trouble if they even think of it and take the child too the child knows that they've got their parent backing them you know and that their parent is strong because I think I recall that going on the school bus with my child stopped the bullying straight off or going up to the school or you know it's like these bullies know that there is a family behind this child, they're not there on their own you know my mother was a great one for going down to school and I went to a Catholic school and she would have a go at the nuns no problem so love it love it that's so good, yep we can take a tip out of her box they're introducing that some schools no parental, no that's unlawful Lynette, that's unlawful and it's under section, I think it's section 36 of the care of the child act care of child act what year is it anyway I think it's 2004 yeah they'll dig it up section 36 go and have a look at that the parent has the control the child may not make decisions for themselves before they're 16 I've got a friend up here that regularly reads her kid's school the riot act about what they've done yeah good print that piece of section off the act and get down to the school and say you have don't even think about it you might not have been thinking about it but don't start thinking about it yep absolutely take action, don't worry about stuff, take action and you'll feel better don't overthink it, do it yeah that's it ok everyone, wonderful thanks everybody, thanks so much Liz you're welcome that was awesome and we'll be back again on Friday, same bat time same bat channel and Alan will be on on Friday night that's right, yep, Alan Holt coming to talk to us about his adventures yes, yes doing all sorts of stuff in the courts on his own behalf, so that's always interesting when you're doing stuff on your own behalf, although I find it like, hmmm, I'm not very good on my own behalf you've got a winning combination already Liz so why change it, exactly ok guys, fantastic thanks everyone, see you later have a good day, have a good rest of your week, till we see you again thanks Emma, yep, see ya see ya