The speaker discusses various sections of the Medicines Act and the Health Act in New Zealand, highlighting specific regulations and permissions related to the COVID-19 vaccine. They mention the requirement for Gazette publication, the role of the Ministry of Health as the regulator, exemptions for clinical trials, and the responsibility of individuals to provide informed consent for vaccination. The speaker also references a case involving coercion and inducement by Tennis New Zealand and Sport New Zealand. They analyze Section 92I5 of the Health Act, which grants powers to medical officers of health to issue directions to individuals, but emphasizes that compulsory treatment cannot be required.
And I'll set up Facebook as well, just so that's done and I don't forget about it. Oops, better not put it in that one. Hi Liz. Hi Emma. How are you doing? Good, good. I think, well let me, I just set up Facebook, so welcome along everybody that's watching on Facebook or watching the recording at a later point. We've got an interesting night. Yeah, well we've got a few subjects tonight. Fantastic. Firstly, you know how I was talking about the people having to be put in the Gazette under the Health and Safety at Work Act? Anything that's under regulations or orders has to be put in the Gazette.
Right, now, so I thought, I wonder where those, because I started to look at the Medicines Act, I thought the Health Act, you know, the TB regulations were under the Health and Safety regulations were under the, made under the, not under the Health Act, they were made under the TB Act. That's right. 1948. But they were all administered by the, under the Health Act, I think, by the Ministry of Health anyway. So the regulator was the Ministry of Health.
So I thought, where are these COVID permissions, COVID vaccinators permissions? I started to look at the Medicines Act because, of course, I haven't looked at the Medicines Act much, but remember about the Medicines Act, that under Section 20, as a new medicine, COVID-19 couldn't be warrantied to be safe or effective. So I thought, what else is in the Medicines Act? Might be regulations. But first I started to look through the Medicines Act to sort of get a feel for it.
Some of the interesting things. It's got a Part 7, sort of the Act, sorry, Part 3, I think it is, in Section 7. It has a description of natural persons. You very rarely see that in any of the Acts. It's quite hard to find. I think it's in the Hazard of Substances Act as well. So Section 7, subsection 4. You can read about natural persons in there. Employees or workers, I think they are defined in there.
Also, 5A, capital A, the relationship of the Medicines Act 1981 to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. And what they say about that, because I just made notes about it, the requirements of this Act are additional to the requirements of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Because I know that they got, they sort of skipped around the Hazardous Substances Act by some sort of engineering. But under the Medicines Act, they didn't. Section 16.
The Director-General and every officer, and every medical officer of health, and every officer, every other officer, shall exercise the powers and functions conferred on him by this Act, subject to the direction and control of the Minister. Note, subsection 2, sorry, Section 20, subsection 2. No consent given under this Act, under this section, shall be deemed to warrant the safety or efficacy of the medicine to which the consent relates. So you've always remembered that, OK? No warranty.
And then there was something I wrote up about the advertising. Oh, it's in the regulations. Section 15, we're still on the Act, subsection 1. They may from time to time be appointed under the Public Service Act 2020. Such officers are, as are required for the purposes of this Act. So you've got, so I think the, like the, where do we get, because I like to know the chain of command. So the Ministry is at the top.
And then under this Act, they appoint the, they appoint the, you know, the General, what are they called, of health, etc. And the medical officers of health, they're all appointed through the Public Service Act, OK? For the purposes of the Act. Section 24.5. This is a horrendous one. You know how people have been talking about off-label medicines? I believe they got them in, these new ones, under Section 24, subsection 5. I did a search in the, I did a search in the Gazette and there's a medicine called Hexazim.
I don't know how you'd spell it, it's H-E-X-A-X-I-M. And it's what I'd call a Frankenstein medicine. Yeah, I was going to say, with a name like that. It's got, it's got diphtheria, typhoid, and these are active ingredients in it. Oh my God. Pertussis, which is whooping cough. Pneumonococcal bacteria. For God's sake, please don't say that you're injecting our babies with that. Wow. Does it say what it's for, Liz? It just says that it's, have a look on the, if you want to go and have a look at the Gazette, you could put maybe Hexazim in, or you could put Section 24, subsection 5, the Medicines Act.
And the guy who gave consent for that was Chris James. He's the group manager of Medsafe. He signed that one off. And he consents to new medicines in the New Zealand Gazette. Okay. There is also Section 30, which is exemptions for a clinical trial. They call people who do the clinical trials investigators. I checked that as well. No mention of any investigators. No mention of any clinical trials. So they may distribute, in a clinical trial, they get an exemption from, I think it's 24.
Sorry, it's not 24, 20, Section 20, those consents, and they get exempted from the consents and the provisional consents. Right, so 20 and 23. And as I say, I'm just making notes. You can read all of this yourself. If you like horror stories. Section 30, subsection 1. And they may distribute for the sole purpose of obtaining clinical and scientific information with respect to its safety and efficacy. A little bit more about these people. Investigators have been, they must have been approved by the Director-General on the recommendation of the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
And the Health Research Council of New Zealand is a Crown entity under Schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act 2004. The HRC, I did a bit of research on them. They're all into clinical trials. They're mad keen on clinical trials. Wanting to get everybody, all New Zealanders wanting to have the opportunity to get into clinical trials. And experiment on everybody. Yep, that's it. So I did a little bit of looking at their website. They're called the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
And they want to enhance AAPIROA through clinical trials. That's one of the new things I put out. You know, they put out these, whatever they call them. Yeah, press release type things. And they say, as a result of 18 months' research, which was led out of the Innovations results. Out of Auckland and Otago universities. And included a diverse team of clinical researchers, advisory and consumer groups. Consumer groups, in this case, means people who are taking the jabs or what the hell they're experimenting on people with.
Okay, so then I thought, I still haven't found where I know they have to be appointed somehow. So I went and had a look at the Medicines Regulations 1984. So, clause 7 about advertisements, straight off. Advertisements are not to claim official approval. No advertisement shall contain a statement to the effect that any officer in the service of the government has approved or has refrained from disapproving the advertisement. And any claims or statements made in it. And I'm beginning to think straight away about safe and effective.
All those officers of the government who were blabbing on about safe and effective, right? Bloomfield. Yeah, which is all of them. Yep. Then we get misleading statements under clause 25. But the beauty, the beauty one and the jackpot is clause 44. 44 capital A. Now, I've sent that over to you. Have you got that? We can have a look at that. Oh, I will have. I'll just go and see if I can find that email. Oh, yeah.
So that's Medicines Regulations 1984. Yep. Is that the one? Yep. And it's clause 44 capital A. It's not such a new clause. It was put in 1992, I think. When you look at the bottom of when it was added in. So it wasn't there in 81, but they added it. Yeah. Let's have a look at it. OK. Now. This is legislation. Secondary legislation. But those regulations have to be put up. And I would have thought, well, they're going to have to prove this stuff.
So clause 44A, administration of vaccines and approved immunisation programmes. Any medical practitioner or other person who is authorised by the director general or medical officer of health, in accordance with this regulation, to administer for the purposes of an improved immunisation programme, a vaccine that is a prescription medicine, may, in carrying out that immunisation programme, administer that prescription medicine otherwise than pursuant to a prescription. Whether the COVID-19 was ever a prescription medicine, whether it was ever something that would have come under these regulations or not, is all up in the air now.
I don't think it ever got put as a prescription medicine because it was a new medicine that was on trial. So, basically, what we're paring this down to is that this all proves this was a medical trial. This would have come under probably section 30. But that's what they'll probably try and argue. That it had an exemption. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, Nicolai. Yeah, they say it themselves, don't they? So, you know, all of this bullshit about section 23 was pretty much to throw people off their feet.
Yeah, it looks very much like it's a section 30. But let's say, let's just say it's a prescription. So what do you have to do? So, he may authorise, or she may authorise, because we've got that Vernell woman now. Or any person to administer a vaccine for the purposes of an improved immunisation programme. If that person, following written application, provides documentary evidence satisfying the Director General or the Medical Officer of Health, as the case may be, that that person, A, can carry out basic emergency techniques, including resuscitation and treatment of anaphylaxis, and can see that these vaccinations are pretty, you know, this is 1992.
This anaphylaxis is not new. Not new, no. B, has knowledge of the safe and effective handling of immunisation products and equipment, can demonstrate clinical interpersonal skills. So I don't think the people who were injecting people and saying, oh, you know, you can go home after 15 minutes, had any idea. And D, and this is the most important one, I think, has knowledge of the relevant diseases and vaccines in order to be able to explain the vaccination to the patient, or to the parent or guardian of the patient, who is to consent to the vaccination on behalf of the patient, to ensure that the patient or the parent or guardian of the patient can give informed consent to the vaccination.
Wow. Wow, that's an interesting one. That's good to find. That's really good, because that never happened. And I think that Rory Nairn's case is a pretty good, you know, where was, you know, this is for, this is saying that something that should be a prescription only medicine, you don't have to get it on prescription in the case of a mass vaccination programme. But you do have to have people who have to apply to the medical officer of health who can prove to him or her all those things.
And now, how the hell did they have any knowledge of the disease or the vaccine to be able to give informed consent and to be able to explain to them? So they can give, I mean, that D, that subsection D is a really good explanation of why the person themselves, it's the person themselves who can, who holds the responsibility of informing the person who's being vaccinated. Yes, because they were using something like that in Australia, weren't they, to hold.
Oh. Yeah, and I didn't think we had any clauses like this, but this certainly is. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, it'll be not really amusing because, I mean, the thing is that people have had their lives wrecked and killed and God knows what. Yeah. But to see how a lawyer is going to handle D. Yeah. And I don't believe they got all of this, I don't believe they got these permissions anyway. No. They would have been, they would have said, even if they'd said we've given it to everybody who's got a, who's either had a nursing degree or something and put it in the Gazette, because all of this stuff, it has to be Gazetted.
We know it has to be Gazetted, even if you're dealing with health and safety at work, which is a lot less, you know, because you're basically looking at the health and safety of equipment, not health and safety of equipment, you're looking at the safety of equipment or the quality of the air, etc. You're not injecting people with vaccinations. And even in that case, which is, you know, because there's two separate things, right? So there's that, the reason that they couldn't legally, that it was unlawful for them to just look at that order and say, well, I have to do this, was because, no, they didn't bother to put them under section 191 to allow them to do something like that.
And regulate their own workplaces like that, which is required under the Act. Yeah, and I think, yeah, and the trials, you know, I think here's an OIA for somebody. Did under section 30 of the 30 subsection 1 of the Medicines Act 1981, did the Health Research Council of New Zealand ever receive any requests for exemptions under section 30 for the COVID-19 vaccine? Yeah. Yeah, crikey. Yeah, pretty, pretty sicko, eh? Yeah. Okay, what was the other thing? Yeah, I want to talk about section 191, I've kind of talked about it in a roundabout way.
I want to talk about a little bit about section 92I5 of the Health Act 1956. You want me to go get that? Yeah, might as well. Because we'll get all of this stuff out the way, and then I say to people, if they ask about the legal stuff, I say, watch the first half hour. Because we tend to free ourselves up after this, do our kind of reading, and then we're going to talk about the census.
Okay? Yeah, cool. Jeff said, there's so much that needs doing, so don't worry about it, Jeff. Who have we got on our side? What have I said a million times? Oh, now tell me again, what was it, 92 Health Act? The Health Act 1956, section 92I, I for island, subsection 5. Just bring up the whole of that section. Now, this was the section that Erica used in her case in the district court to resist the strikeout application.
Oh yeah, because I didn't hear. I was wondering where that ended up. Well, they got the strikeout, but there's going to be a judicial review put together out of it, which is really exciting. Cool. Because of what the judge at the district court had to say. Oh yeah. So I remember, for people who don't know, Erica was arguing that Tennis New Zealand and Sport New Zealand had coerced people into having vaccines. Not coerced, coerced or the other part that's in section 92 is induced.
So it's more of an inducement, but it's still under the same section of the Act, right? That's the Health and Safety at Work Act. So, and you can take Health and Safety at Work Act arguments either in the district court or, you know, those courts, or you can take them in the Employment Relations Authority and in the courts, depending, but you have to basically work out how you do that. And we've done that. We're arguing those cases pretty soon now.
So anyway, what the judge said was that because the tennis clubs and Sport New Zealand and Tennis New Zealand weren't the medical officer of health, a medical officer of health, that what they were doing, they were, and I think he was only applying, that's right, well, he applied it to them all, but in particular to Sport New Zealand, because Sport New Zealand is the only one that is actually an agent of the state in the Act.
OK, so basically the judge was saying they weren't acting as medical officers of health, they were promoting sport and they weren't making anybody take vaccines. Yeah. So, because this was all in the coercion argument, right? Yes. He said, I should have it before me, but basically he said the medical officer of health to make a claim would be a judicial review. That he couldn't deal with in the district court, which we disagree with. But what he's saying is, this section of the Act, of the Health Act, applies to the medical officer of health.
Right? Now, who is the medical officer of health or the director general? They could do all these things. Let's go down them again. They used this a lot, actually, to back up what they did. Except this Act is all to do with consent to things and free, you know, you've got to freely consent to just about everything. And to get you to do anything, it's also an individual, OK? This is not a group. So, this section applies if a medical officer of health believes on reasonable grounds that an individual poses a public health risk.
Right? We're all individuals, they keep telling us that. Especially in the census. Oh, that'll be a laugh in a minute. OK? We're all individuals for the purposes of our human rights or our rights under the Bill of Rights Act or under these Acts. OK? So, the medical officer of health may give the individual any direction or directions listed in subsection 4. There's nothing in the Health Act about telling people you're worth it in some place or you're such and such a group.
Yeah? Because remember, it was all groups. Group number 4 or group number 6 or group number 3 or what the hell. Right? If the disease that the individual believed to have is not a notifiable disease, every direction given to the individual must have prior approval of the Director General. OK? Well, let's forget 3 then. If it's a notifiable. Keep on going. So, let's take it down. The medical counselling and other activities related to the infectious disease.
So, we get back to infectious diseases anyway. COVID-19 was a notifiable infectious disease under this Act. They must participate in counselling. They've got to be directed. But first, you've got to find a person who's got it. Right? You've got to have it in the first place. Education and other activities related. Refrain from carrying out specified activities. For example, undertaking employment using public transport or travelling within or outside of New Zealand. Unless absolutely or otherwise stated conditions.
So, they can stop you going to work. They can stop you using public transport. Did they stop people using public transport? No, they didn't. Who the hell had it? Refrain from going to specified places either absolutely or unless stated conditions. I mean, they got all their inspiration off this. But they applied it to great groups of people. And our rights are individual rights. Take specified actions to prevent or minimise the public health risk posed by the individual.
Stay at all times at specified times at specified place of residence subject to specified conditions. Accept supervision by a named person or persons for the time being. Holding a named office, including without limitation. Attending meetings. This is probably, I don't know, to inform people about, I don't know, what sort of diseases. I think this is possibly to do with stop spreading the spread of HIV. Providing the person with information on any action, occurrence or plan that is relevant to the public health risk posed by the individual.
Comply with instructions to prevent the spread of the infectious disease. Then we get to five, and this is our little beauty. In no case may a direction require an individual to submit to compulsory treatment. Okay. Yeah. Which includes masks and testing. Which includes masks and testing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then I think, I think further down when you get, because these are all 90s, if you go, this is 92, go up a little bit in the act.
I think under 90 and 91. It's kind of got, it's got the overarching principles, and we've got to always remember these, right? C-venereal disease got gone, you know, and don't have to tell anybody about that. Management of Part 3A, just a little, take it down a wee bit, Emma. So the principles. Okay. To avoid doubt. Oh, here we go. This is a very late one. 92DDDDD is not, to avoid an individual undertaking contact tracing in response to a request under section 92, is not performing a function under this act.
So, they were pretty keen to make sure that you could be tracked. Right, so they put that one in. But the paramount consideration. Paramount consideration of the expectations principles. It's a protection of public health. Public health. Respect for individuals. 92C, an individual must be treated with respect for the dignity of the individual. Voluntary compliance, 92D. If an individual poses a public health risk, and that risk can be prevented or minimised by the individual's voluntary compliance with certain measures, the individual must be given the opportunity to voluntarily comply with those measures before measures under this part are applied to the individual.
Okay, so all the stuff about lockdowns and all this carry on. That wasn't voluntary. We were no, we weren't public health risks. We hadn't been, you know, nobody, we didn't go to the doctor and the doctor said you've definitely got something in the, you know, a raging flu and you better stay home. Everybody would have, right? They just, and this is why, even though this was the proper act to have used, they didn't use it. It's got too much good stuff in it.
Didn't suit their purposes. Didn't suit their purposes, yep, that's right. So, yeah, so, I mean, it's got to be worked out yet what the judicial review is going to be about, but people, get ready to do a bit of fundraising for Erica. Yep. We might even, you know, we might probably have to end up doing the darn legal work ourselves, but anyway. What's the cost involved in that, Liz? It's not hugely more costly, but, you know, the thing is that it's scary when, like, they're probably going to chuck costs at Erica over the fact that she lost, you know, that they were able to strike out.
And I think that they're going to have a go at that. Erica's going to speak for herself, here she is. There you go, Erica. Oh, hi there. I actually caught a bit of the news tonight about the Gloria Vale case, and what's their argument? Health and Safety at Work Act. Bunch of volunteers. The judge struck out the case for a number of reasons, but one of them, and only one of them had to succeed, one of them was that because I am not a worker of the Taupo Tennis Club.
And as we all know, when you walk around the supermarket, the supermarket has to look after you. You can't have the forklift driver bringing pallets in, knocking you down. When you go to a construction site, you have to put a hard hat on and some gumboots and a vest. Even though you're a visitor, you're not a worker. The Health and Safety at Work Act applies to anyone who's visiting any kind of undertaking. So this judge said, yes, there was coercion, but Erica is not a worker of the Taupo Tennis Club.
So, yeah, he's got, he doesn't know what awful pie he has put his finger in. I've asked for a transcript and the registrar has said, oh, OK, the transcript can be given if the judge will allow it. I'm like, OK, well, I'm not sure the time frame from an appeal, but I do need it pretty, pretty soon. And hopefully within the time frame of an appeal. So the man will know all of this. Hey, tell us about the Gloria Vale.
What was the case? Oh, those Gloria Vale cases have been going on for several months. I'm not really sure what the story is. Well, as far as I know, you remember I said I was going to use the case of Just Pilgrim. He was the teacher that appeared before, he was the principal of the school. He signed off on another guy with a fancy name who had sexually assaulted one of the children. And one of his defences was, well, I did my best to protect the children.
I only let him teach the boys. And we also needed, you know, the school would have fallen over. And, you know, and we really needed the teacher. And the answer of the teacher's counsel was, you can't put your, what you want, ahead of the health and safety of the children in that class. So the Gloria Vale stuff, the initial findings were they were trying to get out of the Health and Safety at Work Act. They were saying they were volunteers and, you know, obviously it's a religious group or cult group or, sorry, if I'm insulting people, I don't really know much about it.
But, I mean, it's just another example of Health and Safety at Work Act applies to pretty much anyone when there's money involved. So was that found, even though they were volunteers, but because Gloria Vale itself paid people to do some things? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think that was determined several weeks ago, maybe months. The other example, the other case in point is the White Island prosecutions. WorkSafe are prosecuting the tour guide operators who took workers and customers out to White Island before it erupted.
And the whole case is about other persons. So the operator put the, you know, the operator put the lives of the workers at risk and also other persons, which is customers. I do remember in the hearing saying to the judge, you know, if I go into a cafe, if they're scaffolding or something, you know, they're still accountable. I may not be a customer yet, but they still have to make sure that I'm OK. Anyway, the transcript will show all of that.
And the man's just, the man's obviously been nudged to strike out every single option. So my OIA, I've started drafting it. I'm just going to say, please, can I see all the emails between Judge Hollister Jones for X number of days, please? With the subject, Taupo Candice Club, the CIV number and Eric Wisham and Sport New Zealand. But he's been instructed to do this because he's contradicted himself in the decisions, which the transcript will, you know, that'll be evidence.
I'm wondering if they don't provide the transcript. Yeah, that's not going to look good when I do an appeal either. No, no. Well, you can just wait. You can just put off the appeal while you wait for it. Is there a time frame on the appeal? Well, you just, I mean, the appeals are actually a lot easier to deal with than the, because you're sometimes waiting for people's stuff, you know. So you just keep in touch with the registrar and say, they haven't come up with it yet.
Or I need more time because they've come up with it late. Yeah, I mean, we probably shouldn't even have to start until you've got that transcript. And then the time should run from there. Yeah, there are always arguments over these things. You can always. I love the idea of going after his emails. I love that idea. Well, yeah, they released all the emails from which was the American OIA where they released like thousands of emails. And then some intern went through them all.
Was it Joe Biden in 2021? I'm trying, I'm trying to remember. Maybe it was Hillary Clinton emails. Anyway, over there, you know, give me all the emails and they give you, you know, four or five thousand pages. I'm trying to get the emails from Mrs. Patricia Harris and the OIA person goes, oh, no, no, there's no emails. So I replied and said, but hang on, she's on the vaccine advisory committee meeting minutes. And another OIA, you must have emailed her to invite her to these meetings.
And then no, and then it's quiet. The line goes dead. Mic drop. Mic drop and they walk off the stage. Oh, you couldn't. I don't know. It's almost like a comedy show, you know. It is. It is. Yeah. So the the other thing that the judge said in the hearing was that. Well, he heard in the hearing that the Bill of Rights had been in the district court before. Welcome to the Attorney General. And then in his decision, he goes, oh, no, this other case was in the district court.
And it wasn't. It didn't succeed or something. What was he talking about? I don't even want to read it. Something Housing New Zealand versus someone. Sounds like Housing New Zealand messed up, as they always do. So he cherry picked and found a case that wasn't favourable for the Bill of Rights in the district court. Which makes, which, you know, begs the question, how much of these so-called lawyers, legal experts just cherry pick, much like our scientists.
They owe the duty to us. Although they say, you know, a lawyer takes an oath to uphold the law. And to, I don't know that they do that one, actually. They probably don't. No, but they do. It's in their lawyers and surveillance. But one of the things is they must lead the court. OK, now, what about judges? Yeah, exactly. A judge is just a glorified lawyer. So this man heard a case about Bora and ignored it and said, oh, no, I'm going to choose another case that's not in favour of the plaintiffs.
So, OK, there won't be another complaint to the Law Society, I suppose. Well, you put it in the appeal as well. Yeah. Because it's going to be an appeal that shouldn't have been struck out. Yeah. Well, that's all going on. They can fiddle for their damages, whether they put them in or not. But they keep on going on about it. But they're about to fall flat on their face anyway. Yeah, I'm looking forward to dropping the whole gazetting thing, that they didn't gazette their powers.
Sport New Zealand didn't do that. Yeah, yeah. There's a Sport and Recreation Act 2020. They're an entity, aren't they? Yeah. What are they called? Sport and Recreation. Under the Crown Entities Act, OK? So they are... I'm not sure. They also had to be gazetted. When you go to their website and all the propaganda that came out was from Sport New Zealand. So I hope they don't try and obfuscate themselves under this new umbrella like, you know, Te Whātua Ora do.
Oh, and that guy from Te Whātua Ora made some political comments and then he got asked to... And then he got fired. Fired! Have you read that? No. What was this one? Which guy from Sport New Zealand? His name's... No, no, no. This is the director of Te Whātua Ora made some comments on LinkedIn about the three waters. Not even his domain. He made some comments about three waters and he's been... Yeah, Rob Campbell. Thank you, Rhonda.
He's been fired. So, political speech? Well, he's... Well, what was he saying? What was he saying? We would support him if he was saying the right stuff. Oh, I don't know. I couldn't figure it out. It was all media doublespeak. You know, it's like Snowball and Napoleon having a wee fight about their little apple pie. It was probably... Well, that's interesting, though. It'd be interesting to know what the comment was because, you know, there's a whole lot of stuff on LinkedIn if you go and have a look at it, especially if you're researching people.
And, you know, they don't... I did have a look at it. Most of them won't post now because it's like, oh, we're watching them, you know, having a look at things and taking posts down quick as a wink now. I don't even think it was a critical post. I think it was just either something aligning with the National Party or aligning with the Labour Party. Maybe someone in the chat can explain it. It was very cryptic, you know, which to me just sounds like a big cover-up.
There's something there. What was your take on it, Minette? Did you get the quote? Oh, we don't. Oh, OK. Rhonda shared the link. Yeah, there's the link, Liv. What's it say? I mean, basically, you can't... Yeah. So he was venting about the National's Three Waters policy and the party's leader, Christopher Luxon. But, I mean, this goes back to the freedom of speech. A person who's in charge of a health organisation is allowed to have a political view about another entity.
It sounds like, actually... I don't know where I am. It's on me in brown, saying it was appalling. Completely irrelevant. Yep. Clear rules of political impartiality. I mean, this is going to be fantastic for the Amanda Turner case. No, because... Leaving the solution, as they say, account read, leaving the solution to the major issues we can all see, to the very bodies that fail to avert the issues, can only evidence that John McEnroe, you cannot be serious, Christ.
What on earth would make anyone think that this was a sensible idea for debit-raising alone? What's debit-raising? Let alone the management alone. Let alone the management and the deliveries of tasks. I don't think he's in favour of Three Waters. Geographic and social inequities deepening while the infrastructure rocks. I can only think this is a thin disguise for the dog whistle on co-governance. Oh yeah, so he's against co-governance, I think. Christopher Luxton might be able to rescue his party from stupidity on climate change, but rescuing this from a well he's dug himself might be harder, he posted.
National was backed up by a likely coalition partner, ACT, whose leader, David Seymour, described the post as a rant. Seymour said Labour has politicised the public service by putting Campbell in charge of Health New Zealand, and he needs to pull his head in or resign. Seymour went on to say the incident was the tip of the iceberg on eroding political neutrality. Much of the Wellington bureaucracy is openly sympathetic to the left, and that is a real concern.
So, so, so he's for Three Waters. What the hell? Yeah, I think it is. I think he must be for Three Waters. That would make much more sense, right? Because Seymour, whose ACT party, right, said much of the Wellington bureaucracy is only openly sympathetic to the left, and that's a real concern. A politically neutral public service that can carry out the policies of government of all colours is critical, he said. As a member of a ministerially appointed board, Campbell is bound by the Code of Conduct, but is ultimately responsible to the minister, which in Campbell's case is Health Minister Ayesha Verrill.
This is distinct from public service. Oh, this is good. This is distinct from public service. In fact, it's also responsible to the Public Service Commissioner, Peter Hughes. The Code of Conduct for proud entity board members says they act in a politically impartial manner. That's very interesting, isn't it? Because, of course, in this Turner case, right, she got sacked and the bloody authority backed them up and it was basically over political speech. Irrespective of our political interests, we conduct ourselves in a way that enables us to act effectively under current and future governments.
We do not make political statements or engage in political activity in relation to the functions of the crown entity. When acting in our private capacity, we avoid any political activity that could start it up. We discuss with the chair any proposal to make political comment or undertake any significant political. It's not the first time Campbell has been under fire. Depending to Whātua Ora's Crow School meetings, in an interview with RNZ guy on Esplaner, he said that their function was not to provide occupational therapy for journalists.
Aha! So, Rob Campbell is feeling the heat because they're scared now. They're scared now about the politicalisation that went on over COVID. That was what was going on. They were all following the government's lead. Remember, people had all sorts of things done to them. We'll keep that one. There's lots of good stuff in there. Okay. So, Jeff's got his hand up. Yeah, sorry, Jeff. Jeff. Get the jab or get... Get rid of something to get rid of the mute thing.
Liz, what was that act? I didn't write it down where the Section 5, no individual... Oh, that's the Health Act 1956. And... Okay, so that was Section 5, the bit about not being able to... No, no, 92. 92 I5. What was it about, Jeff? So, the Section 5 was where an individual can't be fostered, take medical... Yeah, yeah, that's the Health Act 1956. Okay. And the 92, Section 92B was something else. No, no, no, no, 92 I.
I for Ireland. Okay. Capital I. And then it's subsection 5. Oh, okay. Okay. Cool. Seymour was correct in calling Campbell out, because Campbell was closed door on the meetings and everything about Te Whātua Ora. Campbell will be one of those ones that, you know, that he's had a shot fired across his bowel and will keep on firing them now, because he's fallen out of favour. And I think that that is a very good sign. Okay. Now, I'm not being political and saying, oh, good on Act or good on National or anything like that.
I'm saying good on David Seymour. Okay. In this case, he's correct. Politics have got no place in our public service. We're paying them. And what have they done? Have betrayed us completely. Yeah. Seymour has come out in his true colours, though, with his get the jab and get a tax refund. I mean, that is absolutely amazing. He said what? Get the jab and get a tax refund. Oh, yeah, yeah. That was 2021, apparently. But anyway, the thing is, he might be against the jab.
Okay. But the thing is, it's the principle we're talking about. We're not talking about particulars. Right. We're talking about the principle of free speech and how politics shouldn't be, have anything to do with our jobs. Okay. Right. Yeah. Now, if I was just a gun for hire, right, I'd go and call up Rob Campbell and say, do you want to take a case? I don't, you know, you might have broken the code of conduct, but in actual fact, your right to free speech is more important.
It's that principle of I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will do everything I can to let you say it. Because you've got to be, you've got to be, let everybody say what they want in terms of politics. Okay. It's too dangerous. You might get, you might, if you started, if we'd had this hate speech stuff, right, say it had been, I can't imagine it would have been politicians on our side.
You know, whatever side we happen to be on, you know, freedom loving people who said, okay, well, we're going to have anybody who says, people who don't get backs as a second class citizens, that's hate speech, right? So we'll have that one. We'll have that one. You put something like, you have anything like hate speech or speech, any sort of speech might be hateful to anybody. Doesn't matter. We've got a right to say it. Yep. And if, oh, look, you will love the interview, Jeff, when you get a chance and all of you will, it takes us into the sense of stuff.
Sean Plunkett did an interview with a guy called Jason Atwood, I think his name is. He's the head of Stats New Zealand. And he had a go at him about the question in the pack, which they don't seem to have anything much in it, actually, about, you know, what would be of use to our economic well-being and policy setting. But there was all this stuff about gender, right? So they had a question, were you born a woman? What gender were you born, man or woman? Or what was your gender at birth? And one would hope that people, you know, decided what their parent had decided on was okay for them.
And then there was, you know, are you, what gender are you? Male? I don't know if they said male, female. I think they said male, female or other gender, right? So he wants to be a fisher then. This is going to give us a lot of fun, this census. Anyway. I'm not joking. Okay. So the thing is that Tracy, I don't know if Tracy's on. She might like to talk us through. She's the person who's got a pack.
I don't know. I didn't get a pack. Maybe they thought, I don't know, maybe I'll get a pack, maybe I won't get a pack. But I'll tell you what I'm going to do, right, before anybody else gets a chance. I'm going to say this place called Aotearoa New Zealand is no such place. Legally, our name is New Zealand and to fill in a form that says Aotearoa New Zealand invites people to treason, right, invites people to treason.
I will not be filling anything in with Aotearoa New Zealand and I'll send it back with very specific answers as to why I'm not doing it and I'll invite them to take me to court and talk about it. Because there's a $2,000 fine for refusing to fill it in. Oh, one of the, it wasn't so much a discussion, he just gave him such a hard time, Sean Plunkett. He said, well, you know, what's, you know, there's not, you know, gender, and Christmas Guy kept saying that gender's a construct and, you know, when he's saying, well, why don't you put male, female, or prefer not to answer in the same way as you do with religion? Oh, well, no, no, we just want to include, we'd want to give everybody the chance to You know, these people have had such a hard time and that.
And he started to talk about, well, I was born a boy, but, and then Sean said, I don't want to hear, I don't want to hear about that. He said, you're a public servant, you get paid to do this. You know, I wish he'd said, how much does it cost to do this thing? Because they say, well, we want, it's a very important document, we want everybody in New Zealand. He said, people are calling me up.
Sean was saying, people are calling me up and saying that they're not going to fill it in because they think this is a, you know, this is just an exercise in wokeness. And they'd be right, of course. But he really called them out. Yes, yes. The only thing I was quickly going to mention was your reference to LinkedIn and our friends at the street. That might be worth putting up here, you think? Our friends at the what? The street, you know.
Oh. Mr. Costa and his eldership and Conway and all that. Yes, yes. Well, what, and I thought this was quite interesting, what Sean said was that, you know, this isn't a question about, you know, constructs and stuff like that. It's a, it's an ideological question. Yeah. And they're not supposed to be asking ideological questions. And then I guess Mr. Costa, too, should be asked about what sort of ideology does he see as the future for the country? And as I say, you know, I might agree with, you know, that we should all, you know, that our law is based on Christianity and that's what we should have as the basis for it until everybody decides that we're not.
But you might as well, you have to chuck out the English common law in that case because that's what it's founded on. So, but I am all for separation of church and state. I'm not after a theological state, which is something like you've got in Islamic countries. They run by, they run by the, by the, by Islam. They run by, you know, it's a Muslim state and that's what their law is based on. Now, you know, Mr.
Costa, and as Jeff knows, he's a very, he's a born again by the look of things. We've got the evidence for that. That's fine. But, you know, is he making his decisions on trying to push a particular wagon? Yeah. When it comes to Christianity and people like him, Christianity always takes second place. I have seen this so many times in so many churches, even Helen Clark, when there are disasters, oh, she's all into prayer and all this garbage.
And she doesn't mean a word of it. And how Costa can stand on that stage and pray out loud in a video and do the things he does to the people in New Zealand, as it says in Matthew 7, 6, by their deeds, you shall know them. And he's a classic. Yeah, you're right. I got Jeff's blood pressure up on Sunday night by sending him that, didn't I? They're saying something because I'd said, oh, somebody on the boat had told me, oh, because I was talking on the phone and I didn't have, I had an earpiece.
So I, well, even then, if I'd had an earpiece, I still would have had to speak at the same thing. But enough to pick up the people who were sitting across from me. They seemed to be reading the newspapers. I didn't even know they were, said, oh, sorry, at the end of the conversation. Sorry, I didn't mean to. We weren't overhearing, but I heard you say, you know, Costa's wanting to be the last man standing as far as the churches go.
And he said, he said, yeah, he said, he said, I've been around the, who was it, the Seventh Day Adventist. And he said, I know that, that he, I said, is he a Seventh Day Adventist? He said, no, he's a, he's a pastor at the, the Street Church in Wellington. So, so anyway, I was telling Jeff this. And Jeff says, well, where do you get that information? What's the source? I said, oh, there's these people on the boat.
I said, I'll have a look. I said, I'm pretty sure they're right. So we did a bit of a search. And hello, what did I find? He's not listed as a pastor. He's listed. He's, he's an elder. And when they don't put up their names, do they? Because you, Jeff went off and asked them, is that, is that Mr. Costa we can see on the screen, on your video. But where it gets more interesting, as I think I told you, and you provided the link on LinkedIn, that guy who was leading the ceremony, he's a partner at Sins and Greedison.
Sorry, Simpson Grissom. And so you've got a partner at Sins and Greedison and the Hitler type commissioner of police, all elders in a Pentecostal church. I mean, it just boggles the mind. Yes, yes. They give Christianity a bad name. And Simpson Grissom. Simpson Grissom is the big, is the big corporate law firm that looks after all of the local government. It's a pity we can't get one of our people to go to that church once a week and see what it's all about.
It's a bit too far for me. I'm sure that the people in there are good people. But, you know, the thing is that when those people are in positions of power and they obviously are not Christians, bad. And they do the things they do. I mean, there's nothing wrong with being a Christian and doing good. I agree. But when they're in them, you can just see the hypocrisy, you know. Yeah, absolutely. Apparently it's the new face of global Christianity.
Because I didn't know what Pentecostal was, so I just went and looked it up. Is that what they're calling it? Yeah. According to this one particular website. Pentecostalism's been around for many, many, many, many years. It really has. I used to go to Pentecostal. I've been to many Pentecostals. It's called rebranding. It's called rebanding. Rebranding. Yeah. They need branding, all right. Yeah. Yeah. So tell us all about what you're going to do about this census, Geoff.
You're the one who wanted them to introduce the topic. Well, what I want to ask you is, and I haven't been, I don't know how to do this. This new act, whatever it's called, Data and Something 2022, do you know if that was gazetted? Sorry, what was gazetted? I was just looking at the old L-sharp and comment. It's the wrong colour, isn't it? It wasn't L-sharp and black. That act, the Data and Something Act. Oh, yeah, yeah.
That's right. You started to tell me about it. Tell everybody about that, Geoff. Well, the interesting thing is that the word voluntary appears in so many sections. And there's one section that I looked at which talked about individuals providing information to a composite. I'm paraphrasing a bit. But basically, what it says to me is that the provision of the information by individuals is voluntary. Yes, I remember you reading it to me and that definitely sounded like that was the case.
So what's the name of the act? Hang on. Somebody else might know it better than me. It says we are required by law to provide the information. And that was what got me going because I didn't see any reference to the act. And that was why I phoned up the Hopeless Helpline and spoke to the Ph.D. I mean, can you imagine somebody with a Ph.D. working at a call centre? I really do think she's physically decrepit.
Well, what's a Ph.D., then, Tommy? James does that properly. Anyway, when I rang up, I said, look, I have a simple question. It says we have to comply by law. What is the law? And she didn't know. And she had to go and seek guidance from on high as to what the law was. It's something that was put out in 2022 in August, received the Royal Assembly. But what intrigued me was that it was in 2022.
And we get to have to fill these things out in March. So they must have been, I think, putting all this together. But on the face of it, it would seem that really we don't have to fill it out because, you see, it's all voluntary. The thing is, what I always think, if they say you're required by law and they don't put the act, I'm a bit suspicious. It's like safe and effective, you know? This is the letter from the government statistician guy.
And he says that the census is so important that your response is required by law. Oh, that's just guidance. That's guidance. Well, whatever. But it doesn't say in this. Do you remember about guidance? Right. So that was what got me going. And as I said, the conversation. But I wish you'd tell us what the act was that you found all of this stuff about voluntary. You put you posted it. I think. Did you post it in our chat? I don't think so.
Well, I'll tell you what. You talk among yourselves. I'll go and find you. I thought Geoff posted it on Facebook, on a comment. Yeah, but we did. I did. I posted it on the union Facebook, I think, actually. I'll quickly go and have a look and see you talk among yourselves. I filled mine in online. And it was interesting. It does let you move through sections without actually giving an answer. So, you know, really stupid questions.
They want to know your sexual orientation. And there are a couple of exploratory things. They're actually using the word sexual orientation. Well, pretty much. They want to know if you're a heterosexual, lesbian and gay. I was prepared to put a few things there. But they went for fun. But they wouldn't let me. And I'm still upset they wouldn't put GEDOI under religion after we got enough numbers last time. I love it. Well, I wanted to put toothpaste for gender.
Yeah. But the guy on the – because that's one of the things that Sean asked. And he said, well, if I put a – I think it was some sort of car or something. He said, if I put that in the, you know, gender, or I put – what else did he say? Or I put animals. And the guy jumped in and said, oh, you know, so and so. And quoted the whole thing back to him.
That's not a gender. Oh, he said. Well, he said, well, what about animals? And then he said, the guy – well, you know, I said, oh, they're these scurvy people. Can I – and so the guy tried to rubbish him, basically. And they tried to put Sean down. They say, oh, you know, this is a very important thing. And we expect New Zealanders will – you know, it's like the theme of the five million lecture again.
Yeah, some of the questions in that were hard to take seriously. I was actually looking for the one where you select all the pronouns that you want to be known by. But I didn't – you know. Well, the courts asked you for that. Did they? Well, there's nothing in the consensus on this one. So they're behind the times. Yeah. Well, when you go to court, they send you out a little thing. You know, if you're representing somebody or something.
Yeah, they would do. What's your preferred pronouns? I never even answered. Yeah. They wanted to know what your current sex was and what sex you were born. I didn't even bother answering the second one. I just moved on. It let me say, I thought, what the hell. Well, they ask you just where you live, just to answer. Yeah. I like that. Yeah, I like that at least. Yeah, that would be a good answer, yeah. In the country.
I'm going to have to leave the Zoom meeting momentarily and come back, because I cannot get access to the thing where I posted it. So I'll be back in a bit. Right. Thanks, Geoff, because I think this is an important – I mean, apart from all the frivolity that we can have with the pictures, I think actually having a piece of law that, you know, you actually throw at them and say, look at this. You know, and here again, you know, you get a piece of paper with an official form that gives you some advice and guidance.
Yeah. Before the end, I just want to have a quick chat about Rumble and the good work that Ness is doing on the Rumble channel. I just wanted to flick over to that at some point and show people the timestamps and that. Oh, yes, please. Yeah. Oh, great, yes, because we talked about that, but we don't know how it works, really. So is it all right if we go there now while I think about it? Yes, please.
I'm just looking at Lynette. Yeah. Let's see. Well, I was laughing at the interview. I haven't – as I say, I haven't got a piece of paper. Oh, hang on. Exactly, Rhonda. Rhonda and Ness should get together, eh? They have already. Oh, good, good. So working together. Oh, no, that might be not true. I think that was one of my jobs to set up a – but Ness is going so well. Yeah, she's doing all right.
Jeff's on his way back. So down here – so I put a bit of a blurb in as a bit of an intro to what's on the video, on the recording, and then down the bottom here, Ness has added instructions on how to use Rumble. Oh, fantastic. Yeah, and all the times when everything's on, all the acts. Oh, man, look at that. So there's heaps on there, and you can see so it's extensive, and then she's also added in the – The acts themselves.
The acts themselves and any other references. Yeah, so it's like this massive learning resource now. Fantastic. Thanks to one of our fabulous volunteers. Wow, look at that. I know. Good, eh? So if anybody needs to know anything about anything that Liz has said. No, I'll use it. Yeah, yeah, so that's pretty much on, I think, the large percentage, if not all of the recordings on Rumble. Oh, she's done them all. Yeah, pretty much. Rhonda did some of the transcripts.
Hi. Oh, thank you, Rhonda. Thank you, Ness. What a team. Wow. I've only done the four, the four that has the timelines and all the links on it. It takes a while, but if you have the video going and those links open, then you can pretty much come out of that whole Zoom knowing a lot and everything that you discussed. Because, you know, when you discuss it, you discuss so much and it goes so deep and it's just amazing.
And that's why I just keep doing it because it's so fascinating, the depth that it goes into. And I can't leave anything that you've said without knowing what it is, even some of the words that you've used. So I've had to go and look up the chorygonym or something. Chorygonym. Oh, yeah. Actually, I wanted to talk a little bit about, a little bit more about the census historically. But yeah, go on. It just reminded me when you said that.
Yeah, and the Man Act, which is the anti-white slavery act, when you talked about US felony to engage in interstate transportation of girls and women, which is the Man Act. My goodness. Oh, you did. You talked about the US about trafficking interstate. And I knew that I had come across that act before. Oh, OK. I didn't want to rename it then. OK. Yeah, yeah. So when you haven't named something, I've gone and found what it's called and put that in the notes as well.
Fantastic. This is so good. Yeah, because it's kind of like, there's a lot of stuff, and because people ask questions, you know. That's really, I like, I really like to answer questions if I can. Yeah, so every question that you've asked is answered in these notes somewhere. There it is. The corrigendum, which is like the. Oh, that one, yes. Yeah, which is where they have to go back and take something out that they've put into a document.
It's the removal from a document. Yeah, oh, instead of an, oh, OK. So you've got an oratum, which is something wrong. You've got an addendum, which is adding something to it. And then you've got a corrindendum. No wonder we don't know the word. Corrigendum. How do you say it, Jeff? Corrigendum. Corrigendum. That's it. Corrigendum, of course it is. It's Latin. Yes, and you're a Latin scholar, aren't you, Jeff? Well, I wouldn't say that, but I know not to be dangerous.
That's what we like. Yeah. I'll tell you what another really interesting word to look up is. Dractomania. That's D-R-A-P-E-T-O-M-A-N-I-A. And it's the state of mental illness that black slaves were said to have when they ran away. Sure. Mm-hmm. I'll tell you. And it was in the south of America at one stage. They were, yep, oh, yeah, well, this guy's got probably a PhD or something. He says it must be, it must be. Anyway, Irina, let's hear what Irina's got to say.
She's got her hand up. Can I just quickly say that I'm not – Oh, sorry, he's found the name of the act. Thank you, Jeff. It's all posted in the chat, actually, the relevant section. Oh, okay. Gosh, look at that, 79 chats. People are really having – I haven't been watching the chats, otherwise I get distracted. Where do you put it, Jeff? Did you put it in there, Jeff, just now on Zoom? No, I put a bit of it in, but I have to give credit to Mr.
Goodchild. He posted the whole post. You can find it on the union. Oh, here we go, here we go, here we go. So, Kevin Scott, listen, request for data sub part two. What's the name of the act? Yes. Give me a minute. Talk among yourselves. I'll go and find it. Necessary or desirable. Thank you. So, that's in the union. Is that what you're saying? It's on the side here, sub part two, request for data. 23, statistician may request data from an individual public sector agency or organisation to produce official statistics.
The statistician may request data from an individual public sector if is in position to provide the data and the statistician considers the data is necessary or desirable to enable the statistician to provide. When making a request under this section, the statistician may, if the statistician, let's say stats, considers it appropriate to specify that the provision of the data is voluntary, may specify in whole or in part. To me, being a simple seller, oh, this is a comment by Jeff, I think.
To me, being a simple seller, it would seem that the provision of all the data is voluntary and that we don't need to complete the non-census form at all. Maybe I'm missing something. Liz, can you correct me if I'm wrong? Now, to my conversation with the lady on the help desk, oh, let's hear about this. It turns out that the help desk clerk, it turns out that the help desk is operated by a private third-party party called Centre, which has a contract with States of New Zealand.
The lady with whom I spoke, it turns out, has a PhD. I asked her if it stood for Physically Decorated Physiology, no, Doctor of Philosophy. Philosophy, I think. Could be working in a call centre. She refused to tell me what her PhD was and for whom she works. To me, it's just another government bureaucratic cock-up. Maybe some of you all might like to care to call the 0800 number and ask a few mysterious questions. There, Liz.
Data and Statistics Act 2022. Data and Statistics, okay. It's in the chart. So what do you reckon, Liz? I think you'd argue it's voluntary. I would. Whether they're going to take anybody to court over it is just another thing. But it makes— Is it mandatory? Yes. That needs some thinking. Will we still be able to say no? It's mandatorily voluntary. Maybe we have to say person, date now or something else on that. Say gender. Gender date.
Gender date. Oh, dear. What did all of the money get spent on? You know, how many— Erica can start putting OIAs into the emails between stats and the rainbow community. That's what he was talking about all the time. The rainbow community got— They're quite a vicious lot, though. They got the free speech people shut out of Auckland University and they got the other people shut down, too. But we got them back in, by the way. The people— You know, they're mostly lesbians, actually, these women.
And they're— But they say, we want to have safe spaces. We don't want men in our locker rooms pretending to be women. Right? And stuff like that. And in sport, especially. And, yeah, so there's what's called a TIRF or, apparently, but it stands for something. It's an acronym for something. So, yeah, but, yeah, I mean, you're completely right. Yes, but the rainbow community, as they call themselves, run all sorts of very expensive consciousness-raising, I suppose you'd call it, courses for places like Auckland University, Auckland City Council.
That's where our rates and our taxes go. All troffers, all bureaucratic troffers is what I'd call them. Yeah. Well, if we can— And bail in all shades. But the rainbow community are experts at it. If we can get more CEOs standing down or— Yeah, yeah. Whatever he said he did. Yeah, resign. Oh, yeah, yeah. Somebody told me about that. I'm just going to talk there for a minute. That was as a result of Kevin McCracken's letter, I believe, that the Auckland CEO stood down.
Yeah, definitely. They're going after the CEOs in a big way. They're doing it. They've served Hamilton as well, so that'll be exciting. I'm hoping we can do the Far North District Communist Society as well. I mean, Irina's still got her hand up. Oh, sorry, Irina. Away you go. She's given up and gone away. She's just like, these guys just don't listen. Are you guys talking about the rates, about serving them, the CEO of the councils? Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Irina. Come in, Irina. No. That's okay. Liz is back. One other thing I thought maybe we could mention, Liz, was the Daily Telegraph article about all the crap that's going on down in Hawke's Bay with flame loads of stuff getting stopped when they're taking all the supplies off them and the army's not doing nothing. Hi. Hi, Emma. Hi, Irina. Hi. Hi, guys. Just want to tell you, one of the guys from Australia on YouTube, he said that Maximus of Law, inclusio exclusio, if something included, it says in the law it's voluntarily to fill up form, then it excludes everything else.
If it says it's voluntarily, so it's excluding everything else. Law to fill up. If it's voluntarily, there's no to fill up. It cannot be that and that together. If it's voluntary, it can't be mandatory. That's what I mean. Includio exclusio. So how the listing law, which it says it's voluntary, but you have to fill it up. There is no way. One or the other, isn't it? Maximus. No, they can't. They have to do it. Yep. Exactly.
And about Hogs Bay, I've seen video when they filmed from a helicopter, an entire beach covered in logs. Some woodwork was there, I believe. Some logging companies, maybe. And apparently emergency services thinking to burn it out instead of give it to people who have to rebuild now houses. I mean, really. Yeah. They weren't allowed to burn it in the first place, but now it's going to be all right. Yeah, yeah. Now it's good to burn and pollute the earth, which we have to save.
Yeah, how that works. But yeah, stopping all the supplies and the army. I mean, when do those guys step up and say, we ain't putting up with this crap anymore? Yeah. I'm really concerned they're going to ship them to some special places. They will tell them you cannot stay here. It's so dangerous. It's so contagious. I want to encourage our lady who is going to have a go at the Defence Force, who works for the Defence Force.
I want to see her case get going. Yeah. Because I think that the Defence Force needs to lose faith in their leaders and realise that they've all been had. Yeah, yeah. Hey, did anything come of the sluice gates being opened up there causing the floods on the dams? Well, it'll happen when the cases come to court, I guess. People are going to have to take them to court. Yeah. And apparently the genesis said it was normal, but it sounds like the eyewitness reports.
Is there currently an ongoing investigation to do with dams? Yeah. Right. Yeah. Because, I mean, you don't get a seven-foot wall of water up here from light rain. No, no. No, exactly. Yeah. Hopefully, yeah, people keep the pressure on and, yeah. And remember those logs, because the thing is, in court, and there's plenty of cases, there's always been cases for hundreds of years where if there's something on your land that you've been careless with, comes into another person's piece of space and wrecks their stuff, let's say it was an escaped goat, came in and took and ate up the neighbour's crop, right, the person who was supposed to secure the goat is liable.
The same with those bloody trees. Yeah. Who's the owner of the forest, right? They got plenty of money. That's a good point, Liz. And they want to do more. They want to do more of that, more forestry, more carbon credits. Bloody green party. Yeah, what did I see? It should be like a khaki cowshit green. Yes, well, and I don't know if we talked about it last time, but I've forgotten what the research I did on it was.
Oh, yeah, anyway, quickly going back to the history of census. The first one that we know about in our system is in 16, I'm sorry, 1086. What's the first person? Funny that. 1086. 1086? Oh, 1086. Anybody know it? It is the Doomsday Book. Oh, yeah. Right. Now, this came into being because of the coming of the fee simple. Well, it wasn't called so much a fee simple, then they had all sorts of duties, because that was at the time that, you know, the English became served from the lands of the landlords.
Now, I did a video over on the Facebook page about six months ago about Elodio. A lot of people are now getting pretty interested in doing Elodio. The history of it and the why of it and the legality of it is all over there. So, it's about an hour and a half long. I hadn't watched it. It was... I'll go grab the notes. Yeah, yeah. It was... Because I made some notes about the census. We can screen share if...
Yeah. And I talk a whole lot about Elodio here. You know, what sort of things it's called. I talk about land patents. I talk about, you know, what they've done in the States, what is happening, what happened in Orkney and the Orkney and Shetland. That is a fantastic story. And hopefully, we might even have a guest. If we can get it worked out for Friday night, which would mean we'd start our Zoom an hour later because the guest would be...
This is the one over at Lisland for Elodio, okay? About an hour and a half long. Okay? So, I talk about it. I was talking about it there in the context of the SNAs and what people could do about the fact that, you know, great chunks of their land were so-called being taken over by the State. Right? And what our basis is. And because they'll tell you in New Zealand, lawyers will tell you that there's no such thing as Elodio.
They don't know anything about it. Okay. So, that is... That's over on that page there. And... Yeah, so that was July of last year. Okay, so it's... Yeah, it's a bit more than six months. But, yeah, I think it's particularly important that anybody who's suffering over an Elodio or anybody who's suffering over in... Suffering over in... What do you call it? The coast. The coast needs to pick it up, needs to learn that, and they need to tell those cops, et cetera, to get out of the way.
Okay? To clear all that land of Elodio and start working on it. Because what they're intending, of course, is to try and grab all that land now and say it's not suitable to rehabilitate. Yeah, and plenty of insurance. I was just talking about that before, Jeff, about I think the insurance is best with... The best one you'd go after is the forestry. It's called the Crown Forestry Trust. And I know about that because that's the money that they get if you're going to make a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal.
That's where you get funded from. Okay? So there's plenty of money. Plenty, plenty, plenty of money. And why should it come out of New Zealand Treasury and people working all over the world to get hold of their treasuries again? So that's what I've noticed. There's quite a lot of talk about that. Okay, guys. Well, I'm all talked about for tonight. Anybody else want to have a chat about anything? I think that's good, eh, Liz? We've done well.
Yeah, thanks for the laughs, Jeff. Yeah. You're welcome. I was considered a bully, though, for saying about the physically decrepit... Was she just a young thing and didn't know what you're talking about? Well, I mean, she can't be that young if she's got a PhD, surely? Oh, no. They give them to them at about 23. This is the age... 23, these smartasses in high school, they go straight from... They get these... You know, their daddies are mostly in the firm, you know, and they go straight into law school.
They get all of the help that they need. They know exactly what they're going to have to answer. Hey, Liz. And they're 23 and they're making bloody policies like this. Thanks, Kevin. Would you... Just saying that lawyers out there are unaware of the allodial, that actually puts them into unknowingly, and under that, ignorance is no excuse. Oh, yeah. Yeah, exactly. Yep. If they do some work, but this is what I've found with, you know, they won't stray outside.
They're quite a timid lot, really. They're quite a timid lot. Yeah. They won't dare take anything that's new. They won't dare upset the apple cart in any way. They won't challenge anything. Well, that's what you're there for. The problem with these community law centres, they're about as much use as a chocolate teapot. I've used the one in Whangarei several times, and I've done better at representing myself than using them. And I'm not being arrogant. I mean, that's just the way it is.
No, you'd be right. You'd be right. Yep. Yep. No, they're just... They're nine to five. As long as I'm on the boat, you know, push off. And they don't give a damn. They really don't. But anyway, that's fine, because, you know... We'll get there anyway. The boat's sinking. We'll see in a minute. Their day will come. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, good night. Farewell. Yeah. Wonderful. Good night. Thanks. Good night, everyone. Thanks, everyone, for coming along. Thanks.
I did get my money back from the post office, by the way. You did, or you didn't? I did. Oh, he did. He did. Congratulations, Jeff. About $1,060 altogether. Wow. Nice. Yeah. That's really good. Yeah. Well, night all. Night. Nighty-night. See you later, everyone. Thanks for coming along. See you Friday.
