The speaker discusses two main topics. Firstly, they mention a letter they sent to the Law Society in response to a complaint about being called a lawyer. They argue that the Law Society does not have the authority to say who is and isn't a lawyer. Secondly, they discuss an investigation into the Law Society, which found that it is biased, lacks transparency, and fails to meet the needs of both consumers and lawyers. The investigation recommends creating a new regulator separate from the Law Society and making changes to improve the complaint system.
Sorry, get the recordings going. I'll go do, hi Liz, I'll go do Facebook and then that. Yes, back into full swing. Yeah, never a dull moment, hey? No time to be... Never a dull moment. Oh, the mighty are falling like flies now. That's awesome. It's really good fun. It's really getting to be good fun. I agree. Yeah, great. I've got a, I've sent you a couple of things that I wanted to remark on. The Law Society, the latest investigation, if you like, into the Law Society.
Review. Do you want to do that one first? Let's have a look at that and then I'll, I've also sent over the letter that I sent to the Law Society in reply to their... That's the one I'm looking at. So is it the, so I've got the A.G. Parker. Yeah, yeah, that's him. Okay. What do you want? Do you want the letter first and then what's happening with them? Maybe we'll have the letter first seeing you've got that up.
I was going to say, I don't mind whichever, whichever order you want to do it in is totally fine. I'll just go grab it. Now, I think we talked about this. Oh, probably quite a while back because the letter is dated the 21st, in 2021, isn't it? Sometime in 2021. Oh, is it? Yeah, I just might, I forgot my computer likes to, wants to save everything first. I have to do that and then I can... I'll just give people a bit of background while you're finding it.
Yes. One of the first things I was doing, it was before the union was put together, I was doing cases for people from about January of 2021. By the time we got to, I guess it's about June of 2021, this letter, I had a case that I was running for Sir I Tupou and the midwifery council were on her case about talking about the vaccine programme on Tuvalu radio. Now, remember Tuvalu is the island that Liz Dunne had lots of interviews with the people there who were being, were under house arrest because they wouldn't take the vaccine.
And of course, the latest update on that was when she went to film them coming back at Auckland airport because money had been raised to bring them here because it was just pretty much impossible. Too much water under the bridge there, they'd been released, but it's a strange place. It appears that these little islands pretty much lure onto themselves and you fall into line with what everybody else thinks or you had it. Well, of course, they were backed up by the big bully state, weren't they? No, Jacinda's father was making sure that they got all of the special deliveries of vaccination taken to them and they were all lining up.
Don't know how the health of those poor people is. Maybe they were, they were a, what do you call it? You know, maybe it was a load of placebos. Let's hope so. Although I did hear that there were some young men that seemed to be in good health and suddenly got heart disease. Okay, well, so this was, oh, okay, it was late. So it must have been about, I'm sure I started with all of this, so it was still summer.
Maybe it was before Christmas 2021. Okay. Okay. So, of course, they were all keen, keen, keen. This was kind of a bit along the pathway, though, so it seemed to be summer, I remember. Anyway, so this was on the 13th of November 2021. The Law Society had written to me and said, oh, we've had a complaint from the Midwifery Council that you're, you know, someone's called you a lawyer and, you know, under the Act, you're not supposed to call yourself a lawyer.
We're happy, we're fine if you call yourself an advocate. In fact, I've gone preferred the word advocate now to the word lawyer. But I was still, you know, like, well, you can't say what I am anyway. So this is what I said. Dear Mr. Clark Parker, thank you for your letter of 7 October when you raised the issue of my correspondence with the Midwifery Council of New Zealand. As you have read the correspondence, then you no doubt have the full context within your understanding.
You also have the correspondence that I had with two of your predecessors back in 2012. I've only kept one part of the correspondence, unfortunately. Oh, that doesn't matter too much. I put my view of the law pertaining to limitations on titles under Section 21 and 22 of the LCA. Now, what's that called? The Law Practitioners, not Competence Act. I don't want to call it that, but it's something like that. I never received a reply when I called sometime in the new year of 2013.
I was told he had passed away. Consequently, I'll put this as succinctly as I can. And from what I recall, being my understanding back in 2012 and from my reading of the history of the society incorporated in 1869, and from my experience with all manner of societies, clubs, unions and the like, the Law Society appears to be at law no different from any other incorporated society or club. Right. So, I note that in 2008 the NZLS became the national regulator.
Now, we've heard this word regulator before, because remember WorkSafe is the regulator of the Health and Safety at Work Act. And it appears like in 2008, when I look at this, they became the national regulator through an Act of Parliament. Monitoring, regulating and enforcing rules that apply to lawyers and the way they practice law, and that the society maintains a public register of lawyers. I also note, as I did back in 2012, that not all lawyers choose to belong to the Law Society, but that almost all do.
Now, that's a quote from their website. What of those that do not? Is the Law Society suggesting that those of us who don't are no longer lawyers? This is a serious matter for, by my understanding, the only way that one can be deprived of the standing that is conferred when one is admitted to the bar, as I was at Auckland on 25th of January 2002, is to be tried in the Court of Law and deprived of that privilege.
I've recently been slandered by some of the profession who have told people that I'm not a proper lawyer. They should know better. I believe that they have been upset because I always work pro bono. I'm a pensioner now and have the time and lack of other responsibilities that allow me to do this. This was in my innocence back in 2000, especially in this time of such great need. Employment cases are almost always brought by those whose livelihood is on the line.
My clients are usually living from pay packet to pay packet. This deposed case, as you can see, is of the highest importance. Her work is to care for the most vulnerable and precious in our society, the pregnant woman and her newborn baby. She is a midwife of long experience who, until this latest craze for political correctness over COVID-19, would have lost her licence for advocating what is now being pushed by the Midwifery Council and the Nurses' Society.
Dangerous, untested drugs being advocated to be given to pregnant women by supposedly responsible associations is a scandal. To sum up, my view is that a club or society may regulate its own membership. But just as if I'm not a member of the local golf club, the local club may not say I'm not a golfer. Just so, the Law Society may not say I'm not a lawyer. This is especially so considering that until the Bar Association relieves me of the title, I am a lawyer.
Well, we get called barristers and solicitors, actually, when we get admitted. So, you know, maybe if I went around calling myself a barrister or a solicitor all of the time, bit of a mouthful, but there you go. The New Zealand Law Society is well within its rights to regulate people who want to join and pay a yearly fee to be on the register and get admitted to the courts to practice. I have no problem with that, but I'm not one of those people.
Judging by the way that other councils and societies in the medical field have used their power to dangerously silence their membership on what has become a political issue, I'm sure that in the future people will not see the need to join these establishments. It is refreshing to see that the society seems to have no such leanings in that direction. I thank you for the opportunity to hear this matter and look forward to your reply. Well, he sent me back, forwarding this back to the Midwifery Council, and that's the last I ever heard of it.
Now, the other piece of news, of course, because I think that it's kind of emblematic of what's going on, that we've got these medical people, these, you know, Medical Council, the Nurses' Council and the, they're not the Nurses' Society actually, they're the Nurses' Council and the Midwifery Council all on the, all teetering on the brink here. So have you got that other news item, Emma? That's the one in New Zealand Herald. Yeah, I'll just go get it.
So you can see people that, you know, when you tell the truth and when you stick to your guns and when you fight, we can beat even the biggest ones, right? Because they're liars, they're cheats and murderers. And the truth always comes out. That's the wrong one. That's the one about Parker. There was another one I sent you, which was, did I send it to you? Oh, I hope I did. There was another, and it was a report in the Herald about, I can probably send it to you.
Oh, it doesn't look like I've got the Law Society and I've got A.G. Parker. You know, our Attorney General that we've got at the moment, he got sacked back in the time that he was Attorney General back in the time of Helen Clark as well. He saved himself 500 bucks a year by not having an auditor, except it was against the law and he got the sack. They never prosecuted him, of course. No. Adrian says she can't get into the Zoom.
The link's not working. Well, it's working. Everyone else's. Or maybe it's an old one. That could have been an old one. Sorry. I was just going to find you the report. I can probably read it from here, but I'll send it to you as well. Now, who sent it to me? Oh, yes, I sent it to this person. OK, so I'll forward it to you, Emma. Cool. Just letting, organising Adrian. You'll get it on your text within seconds.
So what it's about, and I'll just talk you through it before it gets to Emma and she's able to put it up, is the Law Society has come under fire. There's been an investigation into it, mostly because I think it was Alicia who sent me... Oh, Lynette, you're in now though. Alicia sent me a report that Alan Hulford found. I think it's pretty new. And I'll get it up on my phone so I can look at it.
Did you text that to me? I just texted it to you, yeah. Oh, yeah, because it hasn't arrived. OK. New Zealand Herald. Do you want to share screen or is that... I'll make it so you can share screen if you like. It's the 9th of March, 2000. And what do I have it on my... Lawyers looking after lawyers. Panel says strip Law Society of powers to discipline. I've got it now. You've got it? Yeah. OK. This is by Jeremy Wilkinson.
Oh, by the way, Mr. Clark Parker, and that's kind of what got me on to looking at Parker to see if it was related to the Attorney General, who was kind of the gatekeeper of us complaining about all of these high-ups, right, judges, etc. And he will be the one who is supposed to approve the prosecution. So, you know, we don't want him. He's going to be shamed himself before we even have to ask. OK. So what happened in open justice? An independent panel has recommended stripping the New Zealand Law Society of its statutory powers after describing its function at the moment as lawyers looking after lawyers.
In a report released yesterday, the latest in the series commissioned by the Law Society, the independent review panel said the society is biased and lacked transparency. It also found the body failed to meet the needs of both the consumer and the lawyers it represented and regulated. So, you know, if you made a complaint about a lawyer, they backed the lawyer up. If they wanted to have a go at the lawyer, they were biased and, you know, they didn't serve either side.
Hang on a minute. Yeah, OK. It also found, yeah, the report found a primary issue with the Law Society was that its function was to represent lawyers in New Zealand and also have a hand in holding them to account when they break the rules of the Lawyers and Conveyances Act. OK, so LCA is the Lawyers and Conveyances. The panel advised it was time for the creation of a new regulator separate from the Law Society that would handle investigations into lawyer misconduct and lay charges against them when appropriate.
The Russell McVeigh episode, and I think Alicia was talking about this a few weeks ago. The review was commissioned after the industry was rocked by allegations made against a partner at law firm Russell McVeigh, one of the big ones, James Gardner Hopkins. Now, I would hazard a guess that the Gardner part is the Judge Gardner family. Environmental and Treaty Waitangi judge found guilty of six charges of misconduct for inappropriately touching interns at the firm's work functions in 2015.
Take it down a bit further. That's him. And they all got these airbrushed photographs, right? You see them in the law firms and they're like, oh, wow. And we had one in a mediation today, right? So he's got this picture, a bit like this, but he's got sort of sitting at a cafe table and looking. He didn't have his glasses on, of course, in the picture. And when he turns up, he's pretty much like him. If I hadn't, you know, I didn't know the same guy.
Airbrushed, by the way. Under the current format, once a complaint is laid against the lawyer, the law society can't provide updates about its investigation, even to the complainant themselves. Sounds against the law to me. This often results in complainants feeling they've been left in the dark during the investigation process. So the people who complained about this guy, they didn't provide any updates to them, to the women. If charges are laid. And, of course, the women will have been very, very loathe to say anything because they want to have a career in law.
And if you're in the firm, you've worked so damn hard to get into a firm and you'll never get any promotion, you know, and you'll be driven out, basically. If charges are laid, these are heard and decided at a hearing of the lawyers and conveyances disciplinary tribunal. At the time of the McVeigh investigation, the Law Society commissioned a survey of the legal profession and found that one third of all female lawyers interviewed had been sexually harassed during their working life.
And more than half of all lawyers had experienced bullying in the workplace. So this is why Ellen would have been looking out for these ones. In 2018, a working group commissioned by the Law Society found sexual violence, harassment, discrimination and bullying had become part of the fabric of the legal profession and had remained unchecked for far too long. The elimination of this type of behavior is imperative for the reputation of the profession and to secure its future.
Well, I'll tell you what, its future is looking very damn shaky at the moment. The legal community must be a safe place for all, the report said. Following that report, the government said it wouldn't be possible to make any changes to the Lawyers and Conveyances Act to enable the society to deal with complaints about sexual harassment and other unacceptable conduct more effectively, the government said. Who was the government in 2018? As a stopgap, the Law Society implemented new rules that didn't require legislative change, such as defining discrimination, bullying, harassment and sexual harassment.
Well, yeah, I mean, all people can go to the Human Rights Commission, can go to the Employment Authority, et cetera, et cetera, but you don't see lawyers turning up there. That's why you need union lawyers, okay, you ladies who were sexually harassed. If you'd been with the union and ran those, they wouldn't have got away with it. Reporting unacceptable conduct became clearer. I mean, why would lawyers not know that, you know, about the Employment Relations Act or the Health and Safety at Work Act? Funny that, about how they are managing those issues appropriately.
In 2021, the Law Society appointed a panel comprising Professor Ron Patterson. Now, I believe he was the former Human Rights Commissioner that – remember we talked about him when we talked about – oh, no, it was a different Zoom I did. But he was the guy that found the doctor – what was his name? I can't remember his name now – the one who sectioned Pamela for going, you know, when she was sent by the Family Court judge to the mental hospital in Dunedin, I think it was.
Okay, but she got out because we found out about this doctor and a lot of fuss was made and next thing she was out. Okay, so that's all that stuff, you know. Obviously, we can make it happen when we want to. So Ron Patterson, Jane Mears and Professor Jacinta Rudin, who began work in March 2022 to look at whether a new regulator should be created, how unacceptable conduct by lawyers should be prevented and addressed, how complaints are handled and how the Treaty of Waitangi and biculturalism should be included in its framework as well as inclusion and diversity.
Well, you know, they better forget the last bloody lot because that's going to be chucked out soon too. Findings. In the review released today – so that was yesterday – the panel had harsh words for how the law society was currently run. The law society's regulatory work tends to be reactive and not transparent. It has a bias towards preserving the status quo, it said. The current complaint system is not working. It is slow, adversarial, produces inconsistent outcomes, is perceived as biased towards lawyers and is not consumer-centred or restorative.
It is not meeting the needs of consumers or lawyers. The panel went on to recommend that a new regulator sitting alongside the law society would be a board of eight members with an equal split between lawyer and public members, as opposed to the large elected council and board it described as unwieldy and outdated. So it's got veteran lawyers capped to get on to the law society, but apparently they've got loads of them. Hang on. Let me go back because there was a little bit more because there's some very important stuff about how it looks like they're not going – there's really important stuff in there.
Further down, about, looks like they're not – you're not going to have to go to them for a licence. The panel also recommended introducing a freelance model where the requirement that lawyers seek approval of the law society before being able to practice on their own would be abolished. It labelled the requirement as outdated and said it was failing lawyers and consumers. In a recent hearing of the Lawyers and Conveyances Disciplinary Tribunal in Auckland, a lawyer called Hireo Fantic-Human, with just 18 months of experience in the profession, was denied a sole practising certificate because of his lack of experience was deemed a danger to the public.
They're keen on dangers to the public, aren't they? So that was him. Actually, that looks like it's at Dubman House or something like that. Under the new proposed model, Human wouldn't need to ask the Law Society's permission to set up as a sole practitioner. The panel also recommended freeing up employed lawyers from being able – this reads a bit strange, this one – from being able to do pro bono work and said the blanket ban on them working for free to help their communities was overly broad and not justifiable.
So, you know, even though you can find some people working pro bono, it looks like the Law Society has some sort of ban on it. The complaint system is not working, the panel said, but conceded it was not an easy fix. The current model required every complaint to be considered. A panel found even the most minor complaints could take almost a year to be addressed with adverse effects on the mental health of the parties involved. Instead, the panel recommended the Standards Committee be abolished in favour of – if we go a bit further up, please, Emma – giving the proposed new regulator the power to investigate and resolve complaints using in-house staff.
A new pathway would be established for minor matters that did not require a penalty, but would instead focus on dispute resolution. Now, this was the other interesting thing. Under that model, consumer complaints about lawyers' fees would no longer prompt disciplinary investigations and sanctions, other than in the most egregious cases. Because you've also got – people have been chucked out for, you know, because somebody said, oh, they charged me too much or I didn't get the service I wanted, etc., etc., you know.
So they're not going to be allowed to chuck people out for that. Because some good lawyers that they wanted to get rid of got chucked out for that, I happen to know. It wasn't me. OK, I've still got my – I'm still a member of the Bar, not a member of the Law Society. OK, so that's what I wanted to talk about there. I think that's really exciting because I think that it shows they're getting pretty darn nervous about what is going to come.
And I don't see the Medical Council and these disciplinary tribunals, etc., having that much more – their power is going to be cut quite dramatically. Yeah, because they're very, very close shop. They're not transparent, as the report says. And they just lorded over their members. And it was an extremely dangerous thing that they did over – and I was just telling you about the case of Sir Ida Pope and what we had to do there. OK, Geoff, we're going to keep this fairly quick now because I want to talk about the latest stuff about the terrorism because that's what we've talked about tonight.
We've actually advertised that we're going to talk about tonight. So, Geoff, just a quick couple of minutes. Yeah, all I wanted to say was – and I'll put a little comment into it there – it's interesting, this pro bono thing, since Tim's in Greece and now have a full-time pro bono partner. As you know, I wrote to her and I did get a reply back, but she's full-time pro bono. OK. So, where does that leave it? Yeah, I think they'll have to do something like that, Geoff, to remain competitive because, yeah, I think a lot more people are getting a lot more smart about the law and finding, oh, we can do a whole lot of stuff ourselves.
We don't need these arrogant so-and-sos who haven't got our interests at heart. But anyway, we'll talk about what more have I discovered about what I call terrorism in plain sight. We haven't been seeing it. Now, do you remember last time I talked about the Air Border Order 2021? Well, when I went back to check the actual wording of things, et cetera, because I had a printed one and I gave it to somebody else and I didn't have it, so I went back to check it.
Well, I found out that the people from Afghanistan, Afghans, had been exempt from testing and medical examinations since, looks like, it could have been the 27th of February. 27th of February 2020. So right from the very beginning, they were getting exemptions. Who else was in these exemptions, right, from having to comply? The Diplomatic Corps. OK, that's all the diplomats. And NZDF returning from service overseas. So a whole lot of the people in the Army who've been overseas.
Where they've been overseas is interesting, wouldn't it be, to know exactly where all these people have been. Did you mention Ukrainians as well? What's that? Did you mention Ukrainians? They seem to come to mind. People from the Ukraine were… Oh yeah, they didn't get, I'll tell you about when they came in on the scene, because that one that I was telling you about, about the people from Afghanistan and the Ukrainians, that was kind of late in the piece.
So I actually went through the two board orders. One running from 27th of February 2020 to the 18th of November 2021. And the second one beginning, I guess it was 19th of November, and running to 2022 up to, I think it was up to December of 2022 or September of 2022. Because remember the clause allowing people from Afghanistan in went up to December, I believe it was December or September of 2022. So basically, they seemed to know when they were going to stop all of this, and they gave them a free pass all the way through, right from the beginning of 2020.
So two years, basically. Now, the Ukrainian, oh, so who else? So I went through them all, and then there seemed to be more and more people who were getting a pass, right? People arriving from Antarctica, 3rd of November 2020. So at the end of November 2020, that seems to be when Antarctica came up. 15th of January, because these are all versions, right? 15th of January 2021. Clause 828, you had to have confirmed allocations, medical attendance, police escorts or extradited or of deported persons, and specified air crew members.
And a general exemption for all those persons in subpart 2, you'd have to have a look at that. But basically, a whole lot of people didn't have to have allocations. They could basically come in and, you know, go home, I suppose. Clause 27, an exemption for emergency workers for a state of emergency in 2021. So those were other people who could come in without a vaccine. I just wonder how many of them they decided that nurses and teachers were emergency workers there.
The first VAX exemptions started on the 18th of November 2021. The Afghans were already exempted. And then we got to the, so that continued on. Arrivals from Antarctica were still exempted. A person who was a citizen of Afghanistan and arrives in New Zealand on or before the 12th of December 2022. So that was the date that they had decided there weren't going to be that. There weren't going to be that, but they had seemed to have decided that back in 2020, because that was the same wording that they'd put in February of 2020.
So they had sort of a two-year forecast of when it wasn't going to be required anymore. So that was a person who is, so on the 23rd of March 2022, we got another class under, it's Clause 13, sub-Clause 2, sub-Clause C, C for cap, a person who is a citizen of the Ukraine. And D, sorry, C and D, a person who is an arrival from the Ukraine. So, and under Clause 13, sub-Clause 4, a person is an arrival from the Ukraine if they travel to New Zealand for the first time as a holder of a visa, granted under the 2022 Special Ukraine Visa Policy, or they are or have been ordinarily resident in the Ukraine at any point on or after the 1st of January 2022.
But a person is not an arrival from the Ukraine if they travel to New Zealand as the holder of a work visa or a visitor visa granted to them for the purpose of becoming a member of the crew of a fishing vessel in New Zealand waters. So they didn't want any of your fishing crew, thanks very much. They had to get vaccinated. But you could have all of these mysterious people who could come here, right, from the 23rd of March 2022.
Now the 23rd of March 2022 was the date that what's called the Russo-Ukrainian War started. OK. Now, I'd say they were fleeing. All right. They were fleeing. They weren't refugees, though. I'd say they were probably all special people. I'd be interesting to know who got that under the Special Ukraine Visa Policy. Now, that would be an interesting OIA letter for somebody. Who were the people who were granted a visa under the Special Ukraine Visa Policy from 23rd of March 2022? And is that policy still in operation? Also, maybe questions about the other one, too.
23rd of March 2022, the Russo-Ukrainian War, the invasion of Ukraine, the Kiev Offensive and the Battle of Kiev. What happened there? The Russians, four people were injured in attacks on infrastructure. One Russian journalist was killed. And they also destroyed a laboratory in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. Now, we all know about, well, some of us do anyway, that there was very strong rumour that the laboratories were created by weapons and all this. What else was happening on the 23rd of March 2022? The Somali Civil War was still in progress.
It began in 2009 and was still ongoing in 2022. Four Kenyan guards and a Somali policeman were killed during a shooting attack by Al-Shabaab gunmen at Mogadishu International Airport. Two of the attackers were also killed. Two suicide bombers blow themselves up, targeting a vehicle-carrying politician, Amina Mohammed Abedin. Somebody killed her and 47 more people, at least 105 more, are injured. And that was from Reuters. The Yemen Civil War is still going on. A car bombing kills four people in Aden.
Aden, Yemen, including something. I thought I'd have a look and see if there are any terrorist groups in the Ukraine. Well, surprise, surprise. The two big ones are Shariat Janat and Caucasus Emirate. Both jihadist groups. The most recorded attacks, 315 attacks and 257 deaths in Russia. So they were carrying out most of their terrorist activity in Russia, but they are known as Ukrainian terrorist groups. The Caucasus Emirate is linked to the Shariat Janat, another jihadist group.
It used to be in operation after the death of successive leaders from attacks by Russian special forces. So the Russians actually get rid of them in the end. And here's the kind of proof of the pudding. In Russia there's been, associated with these groups, 1,179 deaths since 2007. And it declined to two deaths in 2021. So the Russians have got hold of this, right? And we need to wake up in this country. So, yeah, they were operating in Georgia and the Ukraine as well.
What else did I find out about these people? That they're linked to the jihad. I talked about what the jihad is last time. Oh, Asvov. Okay, now, there was something about that and I wrote it down somewhere and I don't know where it is. Oh, yes, I did. I put it on the side. I was writing it on the boat this morning. The Asvov Battalion. What's his name? Tarrant had their insignia on his backpack. They are a neo-Nazi group.
Okay? But they're all living quite happily together in the Ukraine now. Right? Because they've all got the destruction of the West in their sights. Right? They've all got it there. They've all got it there. So, we've basically been letting in potential terrorists since February of 2020. Pretty much lines up with that. Okay, so that was my report for tonight. Anybody been reading up? Got anything to say about that? Did you want to have a look at the Attorney General article, Liz? Was there something in there? Oh, yeah, let's have a look at the Attorney General because, of course, we do intend to bring these crims to justice.
Now, this is who's our Attorney General at the moment. David Parker. Back in 2006, he was Attorney General under Helen Clark. So, she was under pressure to sack David Parker from the Cabinet after his swift resignation for filing false declarations to the company's office. He continues to hold transport, energy and climate change portfolios, and Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen has resumed the role of Attorney General. So, you can see the danger of this, what would you call it, the idolisation of a particular figure.
Like, vote for Jacinda, she's pretty and she's so kind, etc. Here's Attorney General under her. He was the one who led all of this. He was the one directly responsible for the, obviously, instructing that they put a law together in the 2020 Act and all of the orders that could be made under it. He was also the one who was supposed to be checking to make sure it wasn't inconsistent with our Bill of Rights. He resigned, but they kept him on as other stuff.
He had energy and transport and stuff like that. So, he's a one-third shareholder in the company. Now, just name and hear that what might be interesting guy, if anybody knows him, to get hold of him. He's a one-third shareholder in the company. Queen's Park News has, for at least five years, wrongly tipped yes to a question in the annual return asking, did shareholders pass unanimous resolution not to appoint an auditor for the current year? Dunedin businessman and shareholder, Russell Hislop, had not been party to such a decision.
Although he and Mr Parker fell out some years ago, his name was not removed from the list of shareholders in the company records, meaning the declaration was false. So, at first I thought, is he an auditor? But it looks more like, as a shareholder, yeah, it was Ian Wishart who was writing it up then. So, Ian Wishart needs to get back on to this whole thing of the Attorney General and do some investigating with his Investigate magazine about putting together the 2020 Act.
What were the contracts about with Pfizer? If you're an investigative journalist worth your salt, you should investigate all corruption, not just the pick and choose it. So, he was on to Mr Parker back then. So, National signalled it would press Helen Clark to justify why Mr Parker should be kept on at all. Deputy Leader Gerry Brownlee said falsification of documents is very clearly a serious matter. How about not filling them in at all? How about not authorising people to do stuff and then covering it all up with political correctness? Bullshit.
Bullshit. Filing a false return is an offence punishable by a five-year jail sentence and or a $200,000 fine. Wow. Helen Clark had to explain why it was suitable for Mr Parker to retain control of transport and energy when he had publicly, as public, confessed to breaking the law. Asked if the Companies Office should prosecute, Mr Brownlee said, the question is, do we have the protections of company law reinforced if prosecutions in cases like this are not brought? That is the question that the Companies Office is going to have to answer.
And you see, this is the thing. The Companies Office, as a regulator, is supposed to bring the prosecutions, just as WorkSafe was supposed to bring the prosecutions under the Health and Safety at Work Act. But if these Crown entities, etc., are all buddy-buddy at the top, etc., they'll just let them all get away with it. The corruption has to be rooted out everywhere. Everywhere. Asked Rodney Hyde, said the Companies Office had to investigate. Right. So, anybody know Rodney Hyde? Rodney Hyde is pretty on to it.
They should be starting asking those questions. Rodney Hyde and Ian Wishart should ask the questions about how come, you know, all these people were supposed to be able to give exemptions under what, you know, about health and safety at work. Right. Helen Clark described Mr Parker's declarations as a mistake. Mr Parker said he believed that many other people filed such declarations to cut corners. He saved himself. What is this? Oh, this is what Parker had to say.
In respect of my own life, I've done a lot more in my life than a lot of people have. And overall, I'm proud of my achievements, but I'm certainly ashamed of this particular mistake he said last night. With the benefit of hindsight, I was a bit glib in the way I picked the form and sent it in. They haven't changed much, have they? No, he got caught. That's why he's ashamed. And what did Helen Clark have to say about Alan Wishart? Helen Clark said there'd be no evidence that anyone had been harmed by the mistakes, but agreed they justified his resignation.
I don't consider it material to the other portfolios. So, all of those, the health minister, etc, etc. Not following the law, etc, etc. They're going to all go? It looks like the Americans are dealing to theirs. What did she say? Helen Clark denied the resignation was swift in order to avoid the weeks of attack in the House, such as those sustained by David Benson Pope. Now, I was getting Parker mixed up with David Benson Pope because I thought, because I'm going to do some deep dives on Parker, find out what else he's been up to, who he's associated with.
We know he's already got those apartments and wherever they are. Who is he associated with? Any medical clinics or anything like that? We quite often find, what did I find out when I was looking for somebody? Oh, something to do with Unicam, big shareholdings and the pharmaceutical, the pharmacies, etc. Can't remember who it was now. I'll get it. But David Benson Pope, I believe, he was the one who they found out when he was a teacher.
He was disciplining boys and smacking them in the head with a football or something. Can't remember what it was. Something a bit strange. Anyway, and he had to resign as well. So, what did she say? Helen Clark said a style of politics was emerging in which every little blemish that is possible on every person's character was being examined. There we go. She ain't seen nothing yet. We don't have to look for little blemishes. They're big whopping, you know.
Pussy colthorns. Pussy. Boils. Boils all over them. That's what they're like. Are those things that witches have? Carbuncles? Carbuncles the lot. Yeah, I think witches and there's probably warlocks is kind of appropriate. So, anybody else got any? Oh, yes. Now, also in terms of how things are going with all of the cases, the revelation, and we were at the authority today and I was talking to one of the authority members about the big muck up over section 191.
Left him with a copy of the section of the Act. I think they will be stunned for a little while and they'll start to think about it and they'll start to, because it will get around the authority. We know the Wellington, we've also sort of informed the Wellington authority about what's going to be brought up. And now the Auckland one knows, because they all got mandated, all of those authority members and all the people who work there.
So, you know, anybody who's a bit, you know, anybody who works for these government departments who's, you know, come and join us. Come and join us. Be part of it. Yeah. Because if, unless we pull them down, they're going to go on to worse and worse stuff. So, Faye, you're there. Have you got any more reports on the? Oh, Jeff. What about Jeff? Oh, Jeff. Sorry. Go on. With you going to be talking about terrorism tonight, I thought I'd go and have a look at that document that was put out by the lady with the kiss curl.
Oh, yes. Keteridge. No, the signs. Now, I don't know if any of y'all have downloaded that, but I did download a copy of it and I have it as a document. So, I had to read through it tonight before we started. And all these definitions of terrorist acts and what have you could be leveled at just sinister. Absolutely, Jeff. Absolutely agree. So, I was wondering if anybody, I mean, I've got a few plates spinning at the moment, as you know, but I wondered if anybody fancied doing a complaint to this curl lady about some of the politicians.
Because, I mean, forcing people to take this jab, which is, in Faye's own words, harmful to health and detrimental to the environment. Surely that would be classed as terrorism of some sort, or not? And terrorising people, even about COVID. Yeah, I mean, we've got that leaked email about, you know, we're going to hyperbolise this, you know, to get people, you know, more people worried. And so, for political means, for political ends. And it's the classic definition of terrorism for, it's not always state bodies.
You know, it's like, it can also be groups like these military lot that go around blowing people up. But the state terrorism is basically what any tyranny is about. But it'd be great if New Zealand was the first country in the world to declare its government a terrorist organisation, wouldn't it? Fantastic. Fantastic. But I believe it's possible, you know. Yeah, there we are. Thanks, Emma. That's the leaked email. And as I was saying last time about the terrorism, if you go down to the bottom of this, so that was the gang of three, but you'll see that they talk about Operation Tear.
Remember Operation Tear, when we asked them about it, they said they didn't know anything about this email. But they said Operation Tear was a historical operation about the people who helped New Zealand forces in the first time they were peacekeeping over in Afghanistan. And that's when, but that was when they were safe. Those people who helped New Zealand forces were rewarded and they were safe and had been guaranteed safety by our government. This time around, they got left when the Taliban took over again and they wouldn't let them in.
So people from Afghanistan are coming into this country without even a vaccine. And this government would not provide visas for those people who helped our forces over there. That's Operation Tear. Yeah. So if you just do a search for Know the Signs, it will take you to it. You can download it and save it as a document and it makes very interesting reading. This is the one from Cateridge, is it? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The document I've got, it says here in the heading, Dobbing Your Neighbour, Know the Signs.
That's right, it was her, wasn't it? Yeah, I mean, that is such evidence of state-sponsored terrorism. Yeah. That's exactly what the Stasi did. That's exactly what the Gestapo did. Yeah. So there's a challenge or an opportunity for somebody who's got time on their hands. Oh, we've got Erica. Is Erica on? Yep. Great. Erica, do you want to tell us what the latest developments are with Project Tel? Because you'll remember that I told you last time that we're going to make common cause with Project Tel, who are going to be doing the class action lawsuits.
Here's Erica. Is it Dan Andrews, Lynette? Oh, yes. I loved hearing about the Gestapo and the Stasi. It's like Animal Farm. The humans got thrown out by the pigs and the pigs became friends with the humans. So it was the Gestapo and then they were overthrown. And what happened next was the Stasi in something called the German Democratic Republic. Nothing democratic about that at all. That was what East Germany was actually called, the German Democratic Republic.
And as a 14-year-old in history class, I still remember thinking, they're democratic, but they're part of the Eastern Bloc. What does the word democratic actually mean? So, yeah, that's something to think about for a while there. So on to Project Cal. Project Cal is all about class action lawsuits. And they're very interested in anyone with a injury, vaccine injury. They want to go to the very top and go after, well, I'm not sure who they consider the top.
I'm guessing the government and the vaccine companies, the drug companies. In terms of my sports case, I've got other people who've got sports issues. Apparently one of them is a, I think it was a champion New Zealand bowler, someone who represented New Zealand in bowling. I'm guessing that's lawn bowls, but yes. Everyone who's looked at the statistics of how many people were vaccinated, when it says things like 92 percent, that's of the health user database. There's several hundred thousand of us.
We are not a small group and this isn't going away. And the High Court says that one or more persons may sue or be sued on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons with the same interests in the subject matter of a proceeding. So that means anyone and everyone who was cut out of sports, in my scenario, sports, can join a class action. Fantastic, eh? According to... I'm just saying fantastic. Yeah, I mean, I've got, you know, a few hundred on my telegram group who have been impacted by sports.
Things like outdoor, like surf lifesaving. I mean, how ridiculous is that? You're out in the waves saving people, equestrian, you know, not people in karate or other close contact sports. Sports for that. With a very big social distance component to it. Yeah. I'll be hopefully getting them to join a class action. You know, there's power in numbers. And this is something that I first mentioned to the judge last year in July. I said many people have been impacted by Sport New Zealand and by their policy.
And I certainly don't have the resources to organise any class action. You know, I'm just one person. Goodness gracious, it's taken me enough time just to try and write legal submissions to learn legalese. This is the expert in legalese. I've learnt German. I've learnt Italian. I've learnt Te Reo. I've learnt Fortran. I've learnt other programming languages. You know, learning legalese, yeah, it's another language. But we're all operating in this kind of cow and babble situation. You know, you have to learn the language in order to fight the fight.
And I'm very happy that Project Cow are going to help out. Sorry, it's actually cow. I keep saying cow. I'm not sure what it was. Class action, lawsuit. I'm trying to think what the S stands for. Lawsuit is two words. Oh, I see. Lawsuit, yes. So, yes, very, very happy to hear from them. And there will be more of us joining. And it's just a matter of time, really. I sent in a complaint to the Judiciary Commissioner about the judge I had for my Taupo Tennis Club case on the 8th of December.
You know, he was very misleading, making out that, well, he asked all of us about the Health and Safety at Work Act. He asked all of us about coercion. He brought up Section 3 and Section 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. So he misled me into thinking that he was actually seriously considering all these parts of law. And then he wrote a decision on the 21st of February, which was completely impartial. And I tell you what, on the 3rd of March, when I wrote my complaint, I just thought I'd look up his name on the LinkedIn webpage.
And sure enough, one of his family members, I'm not sure if it's his brother, it's hard to tell by age or date or anything, owns a medical centre in Tauranga. And as we all know, medical centres got $120 per COVID vaccination, sorry, per COVID test. So he has a financial interest, well, sorry, a family member has a financial interest in not speaking out against the government's COVID-19 response. You know, if you're going to say it was all baloney and one of your family members was making a ton of money from it, then, yeah, that's conflict of interest.
The man also used to be a crown lawyer. The man was also representing the Medical Council. So all those impartiality should be hopefully considered by the Judiciary Commissioner. And he imparted his own personal views. He said, Erika Whitham always had the option to go to the public toilet. Well, I don't know about you guys, but there's never an option when you need to go to the toilet. You have to go. Yeah, not walk 20 minutes beforehand.
And I put in a photograph of some toilets from the 1960s from the US labelled with white, sorry, labelled with men, women and coloured. So this is the kind of behaviour that he's endorsing, his own personal views that there should be segregation amongst people. Yeah. There's guidelines on the Judiciary Commissioner's website about what judges can and cannot do. Personal views is not one of, is something that's not allowed. Not being afraid to speak out against government is something they are allowed to do.
Liz talks about the three arms of government. And yeah, this man is obviously very, very scared or well, well programmed or well instructed. That's all I can say. We can't take his ignorance personally. We have to brush it off and, you know, keep on fighting and go up the chain of command. And so, yeah, next step is the High Court. And with the assistance of Project TAL hopefully and a class action, you know, we can get extensions, Erica, if that's the way you decide to do it.
Is there a contact for them? So I'll go find it and post it in the chat. They did send me. They've got a page, haven't they? Yeah, they do. It is a slightly vague. Do you remember, guys, I think it was a few Zooms ago, maybe three Zooms ago, that we had Gabrielle and we had, who's the lady from Australia? Ash. Yeah, we had them on and they talked for a little while about this. But now it's all, you know, they've really got it ready to go.
I think they've got a website now and they've also got a manifesto which sends a copy of. Yeah, yeah, it's good. It's only about eight pages long and it's pretty clear. It's pretty good. I love things that aren't pages and pages long, you know. What are these LRE? Oh, yes. Oh, yes, we wanted to know about that. That's that, what do you call it, that vibration thing that makes people sick. Remember the police admitted to using it? Oh, OK.
They actually got a court case against them used by police in America because people had hearing damage and, you know, quite bad side effects from the use of them. They used them pretty much indiscriminately in Wellington last year and, you know, we were all ill after it. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, so I went to my audiologist and actually told her, but she just really wasn't that interested. So, yeah, I don't really know whether there's anybody else interested in doing something.
I mean, I would be happy to jump in and jump on board, but I don't want to do it by myself, of course, because going against police, the big, you know, the big corporation that they are. Oh, no, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. And it's good that there's been a case in the States because the scientific stuff will already be done. That's right. Yeah, yeah, that's what I thought. And I mean, I don't really even know how they got away with actually bringing so many in.
There's currently heaps of them in the country. I'd be really interested to know why they brought them in. You know, there was something, there was something in the dessert a while back about them getting the special permission to bring something in. Right. But we didn't know what it was. It was canisters of something. It was described there, but it didn't say exactly what it was. But they would have been, you know, they would have been prepared for it.
Yeah, yeah. Yeah, these people. And on the nature front, well, I haven't really had any further sort of updates. I'm keeping a close watch on the Cyclone Hawke's Bay help page. There is a lot of work getting done by, still by community groups. There's some really great groups of people and they're just going out every day and hitting it. You know, they're going into slushy mud and clearing still houses and everything they can. But I had just coincidentally a very interesting confirmation conversation last night.
So a friend of ours in Christchurch just, you know, rings every now and then for a yarn with my husband. And he said, just out of the blue, wasn't something I coaxed out of him at all. He just happened to have been doing a job, a little earth moving job for a couple in Christchurch in a new subdivision. And he went over to do something there and the wife said, oh, my husband, he's in the army and they called him up to the North Island.
So he had rung after being up there for four days and told her that he is sitting on his ass. Yeah, so that was really interesting, really interesting. So basically it's window dressing. This is so wrong. And the troops need to understand that their leaders are criminals. They really do need to understand this. And this is why it's so important that we keep on investigating the terrorist links that our government's got. And the people, especially the people up the top.
The police commissioner, this guy Short, this wing commander Short or whatever the hell he is. This lady with the kiss girl, Ketteridge, what her links are. Right, yeah. Because they can't resist boasting. They can't resist boasting. It'll be this. It'll be this in the end. But it's also ideology. You've always got to remember this. Right. And also, I believe, and this is what I believe now, that they have all been put specifically into these positions. All specifically.
And I wouldn't be surprised if they're actually related to the 13 families. That's what I've come back to now because, yeah, my mate that does the research thing, she's pretty sure that, yeah, a lot of them, they've got some pretty amazing links to overseas families, which you can keep going and going and going. It's just actually quite phenomenal where they've all come from and what their background families are, you know, going down the chains. Well, this is what they believe.
They believe they've got the right to rule and they should never have, we should never have got out of, we should never have got out of Egypt, right? We should never have got out of under the serfdom system. That it was the wrong, it was wrong that they should, that we should have risen above our station, as they like to say. Dave was saying that the army's working on the Nature Taupo Road. It's true. They are.
Where everybody can see them. But where the people are actually struggling, Dave, is in their, in trying to get their homes livable again. Yeah, and surely transit should be working on the Nature Taupo Road. They should have contractors pulled in from all over the country. I mean, I know people with big digging contractor companies over here, you know, they're all still working on their local jobs. It's the same all over the place. I mean, it's the same in Hamilton.
It's everywhere. The roading projects that are still going on at Awa Kino and all of that. Oh, my God. They could just stop that. Let's just stop. We have a road over Mount Messenger. It's not in danger of collapsing. It's perfectly fine. They've got a hundred bloody machinery, men and machinery, at the bottom of the hill waiting to, you know, get into that new road through Mount Messenger. I know that most people are complaining about that.
We've just seen the Army chap ask, Dave was saying he saw an Army chap telling them how they'd helped at the Esk. Yeah, they had a little infomercial. I saw that. Yeah. On the Army website, on the Army Facebook group. They did. They did do some PR, that's for sure. They were definitely in the area, but they weren't actually seen to be helping a lot. And that was the thing on the ground. People noted. Where are they? What are they doing? They just weren't even, you know, they were barely doing anything.
And, I mean, how many personnel have we got in this country? To my mind, there could have been the whole lot of them redeployed over there and put up camps and set up feeding stations and, you know, everything. They could have done the whole lot. If they can find the funds to send people to Afghanistan and do peacekeeping overseas, then surely to God they can find the funds to help out there. Well, they don't go to Afghanistan anymore.
That's taken by the Taliban now. You don't go and do anything to help people there. It's for sure. But, you know, over the past, you know, 10 years, they can find massive amounts of money to do these peacekeeping things. I mean, at great cost to the people that went. I know the cost to those people was huge. Mentally, physically, their families suffered. But that wasn't our war. No, and the thing is, too, that they didn't have, they didn't really have the backing of their superiors.
Because I don't think that these wars were probably prosecuted with an idea of helping the people to a better life. I think that they were all to do with, you know, they were all to do with keeping their drug routes open, etc. Oh, totally. Or it's to keep, you know, it's to make sure that they get the oil or whatever, you know. Yeah. It's nothing to do with the freedom of the people. That's all window dressing.
And I think the Army and the Navy are doing the same damn thing. Yeah. And we're paying for it. And they're our own country. That's right. Yeah. Everything's corrupt. Anyway, so yeah, my sister's gone for the weekend. I'm going to see what she's, well, she doesn't have any clue. She wouldn't have a clue. But anyway, I'll ask her how is the mood of the general, the general mood in Eastdale. I can get a gauge of that from her.
Well, I'd say the people's morale is good because they can see that their fellow New Zealanders will help them. Yeah. But it's still damn galling. It's still damn galling to think that, you know, our Army and our police have been so lax and slack. Yeah. I think Wellington prepared us for that, though. Yeah. We're always like, yep. Yeah, well, Man Up isn't the Army. Man Up isn't the Army, Dave. No, Man Up is Brian Tamaki's abusive men repurposed in their lives by his mission.
And actually, I looked at Man Up about three or four years ago just coincidentally because I had to contact somebody who had actually a major part in that for another reason completely. But I did a bit of research at the time, and I actually thought, my goodness, you know, that is an amazing program. What they've done is turned these guys' lives around. And they are all there now doing an amazing job. So my hat goes off to Brian Tamaki.
I mean, for all his faults, that's a really great program. And it's so disappointing, actually, that they didn't quite get their, I guess it was their publicity or their application or whatever it was right when they applied to the government to get it rolled out around the country. They applied for some funds to get it into a mainstream program around the country. And they got declined, of course. They got declined by the government. Because it works.
They don't want it to work. And they made it about something to do with the way they applied for the funding or whatever, the way they applied. I mean, I'm just about sick when I say the word bureaucrats. They just make me ill now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's exactly Amanda. They allow Islam in, but they don't want the Christians in. Yeah. Just undermine our society. Yeah. Yeah. I'm also really horrified at this library programs that are going around with the cross-dressing men.
Sounds like the people were out in force, though, going down to the Christchurch Council or library and asking them 50 million questions about what the hell, basically. Yeah. Well, you know, that is the last thing that, you know, people should be putting up with is having that sort of thing going on and having your children going to a library and having these weirdos. I mean, just basic. What kind of parent would take their kid along to something like that? Yeah, but the kids, you know, you're looking at the books and you don't notice that there's something going on.
Because these libraries are big, you know. Because your kids should be safe in the library, little ones. You know, they wander off or mum might see Storytime or just have a look at these. Well, you're going to have a listen to Storytime, love. Yeah. I saw a little video clip of it and all the parents are sitting around with their kids on their knees watching these plonkers. No. It's hideous. It really is. It's quite sickening to think that people don't get it.
That they don't even understand that the kids are being groomed to think that this is normal. This cross-dressing person doing a headstand on a chair. The split's upside down. Yeah, nothing weird about that at all. Is this a New Zealand library? Yes. Yes? Oh, my God. Yeah. Right. It's all over the place. The things to have taken off is the thing to do. Oh, you've got your knife out there. Just cutting a mushroom. That's okay. Get that mushroom.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You can cut my fingers off, I'll get so irate. Don't do that. Then you'll have to go to hospital. You don't want to do that. Oh, dear. Oh, no, no, we won't go to hospital. No, no. We've got sterile strips and all sorts here. No. Yeah. No way I'd go to a hospital now unless somebody's nearly dead in this household. We're both on the same page now. There's no way. I just thought of that.
What was her name? She died of, I don't know, drinking too much. I don't want to go to rehab. I won't go to rehab. Who's that? She's really high. Anyway. Did you see the story about them dropping, in New South Wales, dropping the quarantine fines? Oh, right. Yes. Somebody did. Yes, I did. What's happening? Oh, my God. Yeah. Yeah. So they reversed the, that said that anybody that got, it was unjustified and anybody that got done for being out amongst the, out in public whilst under these so-called regulations of quarantine and having to stay in your own bubble and all that shit is now going to have their fines dropped and people will be reimbursed if they've paid them.
So, yes. Yay. That's really cool. Fantastic. Yeah. Look, they wouldn't have done that unless they'd been told this was all illegal. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. They wouldn't do that. The courts found that a judge, a judge found that it's all unlawful. Oh, fantastic. Was that New South Wales? Yeah. Yeah. We must try and find that case. That sounds amazing. Amazing. But I've got a disappointing firsthand story of a guy I know, he's a Facebook friend at least, who went to a doctor in New Plymouth this week and was told he could go as he came to the back door.
He said he wouldn't wear a mask. So they said, oh, well, you have to go around the back door. And so they let him in without his mask. But then the doctor, sadly, decided to try and force him physically to put a mask on this week. Creepers. Those doctors have been taking their own jabs, I can tell. You know, they're experimenting. Yes. Yeah. So has he lost a paying patient? I can't say so. He won't be going back there.
Yeah. While she was half-heartedly apologising, she was still trying to push the thing on his face. It's very unfortunate. I thought it was a woman doctor. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, I thought about going and having a friendly chat with her. What do you think? Yeah. I reckon. Ask her if she got, if she actually had people in there who were authorised to jab under the medicines regulations. How do you mean? Well, under the medicines regulations, you had to have been authorised to give a jab.
Ah, right. Right. Yeah. She was on the list of doctors who signed up to the government's so-called, you know, supporting of the... So maybe they got it that way. Maybe. Maybe. But I don't think so, quite frankly. I don't think so. I mean, it was all jabbing people without fully informed consent is what's going to, you know, is going to, and under the regulations, they've got to be able to know everything about the disease and everything about the jab, and they've got to be able to explain it to the patient.
Yeah. But do they, have they even worked that out yet? I mean... No, they haven't because they've just gone, they've just thought, oh, we all got, we all got the government to back us up. The government. The government's got to be able to back them up. So they haven't even seen what's happened in Australia with AFRA and the court case where, you know, the doctors are liable now. So the doctors in New Zealand are pretty naive to, you know, not be even getting that information.
Yeah, yeah. But they think, they think ACC, ACC is all they can think. ACC is all they can think. ACC does not cover them for medical misadventure. No. And it certainly doesn't cover them for doing stuff without informed consent. No. It's their, it's their own insurances that are going to have to back them up. Yeah. Whether they, you know, but they are particularly naive about law because they're so fixated on their own status and their own thing of, you know, how much money and how far can I get in the practice and everything.
I don't think half of them are even interested in, in the bodies of their patients. No. So the Medical Association covers doctors' insurance. Oh, okay. That's part of their fees. Oh. Wow. Last time I checked, I mean, this was more than five years ago, but it was probably eight grand a year. Oh, wow. Nice. They've got plenty of insurance then. I've recently taken out indemnity insurance for a contract and I was less than a thousand. So, yeah, those doctors are liable for way, way more paying eight thousand a year for their Medical Association insurance and obviously membership fees.
I mean, how much are the bar fees or the, sorry, not the bar fees, the law society fees? I think they used to be about, oh, I don't know, about fourteen hundred a year, but that was 20 years ago. 20 years. Don't know. Yeah, that's still a hell of a lot less than what the Medical Association does. Probably down to five thousand dollars a year or something. Yeah, so they're all covered. You know, they all join the Medical Association.
They've all got their fees. So, yep. That's just this document. Insurance. Insurance. You know, we'll be able to help out on, help with Project Health quite a bit, just, you know, giving our, what we've found out so far. And Jeff has got us onto the insurance tech. Yeah. Irina, you want to say something? Irina? Hello. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Beautiful. Just a little bit off topic. Anyone knows what's happening with the Therapeutical Goods Act, which I signed a petition maybe a month ago against it? And I believe lots of New Zealanders did the same.
And just today, talking to a pharmacist, he said, oh, I don't know what's going on. He said, I signed a petition as well, but nobody knows. He said, they're just so sneaky, this government. They're sneaking everything in the middle of the night, which is true. So anyone hear anything about it? No, I haven't. You know, I mean, there was a big push for doing submissions, et cetera. Yeah, I think that's just closed off. They've only just closed it off for the comments, for people to comment or, you know.
Then they do a review of them, don't they? And I think also, there's in the process, Irina, that, well, this is what is supposed to happen, that they kind of have a panel that goes around the country and everybody gets a chance to be, you know, to speak for five minutes, I think. So I'm hoping that people didn't just all sign the one petition. I'm hoping that, you know, people have sort of had a bit of a think about and said about how they think it's a bad thing.
My view was that it basically drives the natural medicines business out of business. Yeah. Or underground. I think from the point of view of the Commerce Commission, there's all sorts of, you know, it should be struck out. It's gone. Yeah. I wrote a big letter because I asked for speaking in front of committee and I wrote them. I said, you're actually doing very racist stuff. Because the community now is so diverse. We've got so many nationalities.
It's all in Far Asia and Asia. All cooking with the turmeric and chili powder and all those beautiful spices that you have to go to doctor to have a prescription for it. It's just mental. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. They wouldn't be able to police all of that. No, but they can put it on the border. If problem, they cannot police inside, but they will put it on the border. And those poor buggers who is running Indian shops, spice shops, they will pay millions to get it in, which is not, nobody's going to buy nothing anymore.
And they will start bringing it in. Yeah. Yeah. Because it actually was quite an economical way to, you know, have good food was to have Asian food because their prices were so good really. Yep. Just to kill businesses. Another way to kill businesses. It's what it is. Nothing else. Yeah. Well, this is the thing. The, yeah. And I mean, it was the same when people would try, I think Erica ordered a great big load of Ivermectin in and they grabbed it at the border.
Oh. Oh. Okay. And then I don't know if you've seen New South Wales now pushing for digital ID. They made a little video circulating in Australia, which is describing digital ideas. The best things can happen to you in your lifetime because everything will be so safe in your phone. It's amazing. Yeah. You should, we should go and sign up straight up. Yeah. Unbelievable. Well, the same people who rushed to get all vaccinated will be getting the ID and that'll be not long lived by the look of things.
Very good. Liz, they are so proud. I'm talking about you every day in a salon. Everybody's so proud of you. What you dug up is, it's just priceless. It's just diamonds. Seriously. When's your salon? It's on the North Shore in the Browns Bay. Remember it's Browns Bay? Oh, it's on the Browns Bay. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. If you're ever going there. I might come and see you someday. I'm moving to Auckland. Really? Oh my gosh. It's so cool.
On the North Shore? Wow. Probably. I know. I'm 25th of March. 25th of this month I'm moving. Apparently, Liz Gunn wants to leave Auckland. I'm like, why? And the guy says she's just afraid for her own life. I'm like, she should just stay. She should just stay and people will protect her. Oh my gosh. It's unbelievable. She's now thinking about leaving Auckland. Would you believe it? It's crazy. Oh my gosh. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy.
It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. It's crazy. Oh, what? Somebody said I should be afraid. No. Liz Gunn. Liz Gunn. She's staying in Auckland. Yeah. It's what I mean. And I told him. It's the guy Dave. I saw him somewhere in the protest videos. And I said, why she should do that? Because everybody knows her here and everybody loves her. And he said, oh, she's kind of concerned about her life now.
I'm like, no. It's actually more safer here than Australia. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here. It's safer here.
