This means being very wary of Labour Party or Green Party members; if any candidates have not declared or denied they are, they should be asked — but every candidate should be quizzed on whether or not they support this government’s iniquitous racial agenda.

“Make every vote count in the defence of democracy”

by Casey Costello

We have the opportunity to defend our democracy in the local body elections with voting from 16 September to 8 October 2022.

With the Jacinda government announcing that it sees “co-governance” as a “Treaty obligation”, we can be assured the Labour candidates in local bodies will support the anti-democratic agenda.

Local body representation presents fertile ground for those foisting separatist representation models on our communities.

Even before campaigning started, Local Government NZ and the Race Relations Commissioner banded together to distribute their instructions on “Running an Inclusive Campaign”.

These guidelines look written to attack, in advance, any campaigner for dipping their toe into defending the basic principle that all New Zealanders should be treated equally before the law.

In fact, we must be challenging candidates on the issue of inclusive, colour blind, equal representation. Those seeking election should demonstrate to voters their capacity to represent everybody in their community, rather than hiding behind guidelines that aim to stymie debate.

Before casting your vote, ask candidates in your area where they stand on the issue of division by race.

All too often the key issues that are of concern to ratepayers, and that includes ALL ratepayers, like the provision of public services – parks, roading, sewerage, waste management – are lost in a mire of race debates.

Frequently, race-based representation is encouraged by existing councillors who claim that they cannot represent the interest of Maori because they themselves are not Maori, making a mockery of the principles of liberal democracy.  

These elections are an opportunity to demonstrate that, at every level of our democracy, voters will not support division and separatism and will hold accountable, through the ballot, those politicians who feel they cannot fairly represent their community and who support division by race.

Twisting the Treaty

Standing at Turangawaewae Marae last weekend, the Prime Minister confirmed her intended fate for New Zealand’s democracy by arguing that co-governance is key to fulfilling Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

Her comments were then encouraged by Tuku Morgan, who gave away how iwi will engage on co-governed entities by saying, “Consensus decision-making means you talk until you reach unanimity”.  

If co-governance is a Treaty obligation, then all the previous assurances from this Government about better representation or better outcomes ring hollow. “Co-governance” is an agenda by which New Zealand will lose its democratic identity.

And if all decisions are to be unanimous, then the wheels of bureaucracy will very soon grind to a halt.

The Political Appetite for Change

For better or worse, political parties form policy and take stands on issues when they believe there are votes to be won. As the public realise that co-governance does not deliver better outcomes for anyone and limits accountability, more New Zealanders are demanding a commitment for change and are looking for political parties to challenge the current direction.  

This ability to challenge the narrative is never done better than by New Zealand First’s leader Winston Peters.

In what has been observed as a campaign-launching speech, Mr Peters demonstrated NZ First’s long standing credentials in opposing racial separatism.

You can read his full speech here.

The speech was discussed further in an interview on The Platform, in which Mr Peters laid a challenge:

“Stop perverting the Treaty of Waitangi and stop perverting the Lands Case of 1987 — and start talking some truth on this matter.”

The “Lands Case” referred to was the first reference by the Courts to the Treaty creating a “partnership”. This decision has often been misquoted and misused to justify separatism, when the decision referred only to a relationship “akin” to a partnership.

The ACT party has continued to campaign strongly in the defence of democracy and is calling for a referendum on this issue.

Now that Labour has confirmed their position that co-governance is an obligation the referendum demanded by ACT is essential.

National’s Paul Goldsmith has also been outspoken on the right for New Zealanders to decide if our voting rights should be differentiated based up race.

He writes at Bassett Brash and Hide about the Treaty and democracy which you can read here.

In 2004, Don Brash called on New Zealanders to consider our direction on a range of issues but the most notable point was the trajectory of race relations in New Zealand. Despite attempts from some to label his speech to the Orewa Rotary Club as the undoing of National’s election chances, it in fact resulted in a huge increase of support in the polls, lifting National from 28% a month prior to the speech to 45% just two weeks later.

The need to defend our democracy against differentiation of New Zealand citizens by ancestry or race has become urgent.

Don’s analysis of the current state of affairs is well summarised here at Bassett Brash and Hide.

Court rules will not allow live-streaming (the KCDC’s Tim Power was once rebuked by a judge for using his cellphone in court) so it’s important that those who believe in truth are there to counter the lies that the government-paid Mainstream Media will tell on behalf of the Jacinda Junta which ordered this attack on independent media.

Once again the Jacinda Junta reveals itself to be a corrupt political dictatorship. Did she get on the phone to Obergruppenführer Coster of the Volkspolizei with this order as well? Is she trying to outdo the other Dear Leader, Kim Jong-Un of North Korea?

As uncovered by The BFD, the New Zealand police — not Immigration NZ, apparently, as was earlier claimed — actively sought to have two journalists banned from entering the country. Their internal communications left no doubt that the reasons were entirely political, profiling the journalists as “far-right” (a purely subjective political opinion) and “anti-government”.

One of the journalists, Rukshan Fernando, was momentarily held up when staff at Melbourne airport were mysteriously unable to check him into his flight. “The moment they scanned my passport at Melbourne airport, the staff were like we don’t know what’s going on, we’ve never seen this before,” Fernando said.

Ultimately, Fernando made it to New Zealand safely, where he proceeded to do what he does: simply Livestream events as they happened.

Read the rest

The BFD has a regular feature entitled “Stuff up of the day” and it’s easy to guess which media company features the most. We admire the BFD’s fortitude in scrutinizing what Ms Boucher and her pack of pit bulls print, subsidized by Taxpayers: it must be bad for the blood pressure. 🙂

You have to ask yourself when you see Green Party MPs (and certain Wellington City Councilors) standing in front of a banner calling those who are marching in support of civil liberties “Fascist Trash” and shouting at a Maori man and his child to “Go Home” whether they should be designated a Hate Group.

by Chris Trotter

The Government is once again throwing the ‘H’ (hate) word around again and our democracy is threatened by it. ‘Ideologies of hate shouldn’t be allowed’ to stand for public office In an interview with Q+A’s Jack Tame over the weekend, Associate Minister for Education, Jan Tinietti, was asked about whether those with ‘debatable morals’ should be allowed to run for local school boards. This question comes as Philip Arps, a white supremacist who shared the live stream of the Christchurch terrorist attack, is running to sit on the Te Aratai College Board. 

Minister Tinetti claimed that ‘people who have ideologies of hate shouldn’t be allowed on school boards.’ To this, I simply respond: fair enough, Minister. But who gets to decide what an ‘ideology of hate’ is? You? The next minister who takes your place? I think I’ll pass. 

She is now looking at whether a law change is needed to bar individuals of this kind from running for this office, and whether a ‘Code of Conduct’ can be introduced to exclude those with ‘debatable morals.’ I thought we had left the inquisition of ‘wrong morals’ with the Catholic Church. It seems clear that today, the powers-that-be are still trying to quash ‘wrong-think’. This is the same Minister who is currently reviewing the censorship regime for what content should be allowed to be published. Are there some ideas and speech which are condemnable, hateful, and wrong?

You and I both clearly know there are. Does that mean we let Minister Tinetti and the Government decide where these lines fall? Never. In a democracy, the idea that the state is qualified to decide which ideologies are acceptable for candidates for public office to hold, and which are not, should be laughed off the political stage.

The Free Speech Union is fighting to defend the right of individuals to peacefully put their opinions and beliefs out there. If they are ‘hateful’, then let the voters decide that. Our firm position must always be that the only body qualified to decide who should, and should not, be elected to public office is the electorate itself. That is to say, You and I — the voters.

Monday, 29 August

Kia Ora whaanau,

Last 2.5 weeks have been busy and I wanted to start by thanking everyone for the immense amount of support you have shown me – from the bouquets of flowers you have sent to my offices in Hamilton and Wellington, to the food you have dropped at my house and the kind messages of support you have sent to me through various channels.

There has been a lot of news around what has happened and I am sure you have your opinion on where you stand on this. You will also have many questions.

I wanted to address some of the points that have been raised in the media especially re the staffing issues. I had to make sure that by replying to these accusations online I wasn’t breaking any rules as these are part of an employment dispute.

STAFF 1 – AB

=========

Firstly, I want to make it clear that I was the one who raised concerns re staff, not the other way around. I raised 66 specific issues re ‘Staff Member AB’ with Parliamentary Services but nothing was done to look into the issue, resolve it or to provide me support. These 66 specific issues included incompetence in doing basic tasks eg making calendar entries, showing up to work on time and booking travel arrangements, to more major issues like the staff member being caught drinking in my Wellington office, not showing up to work at all (without leave), at other times coming late to work and leaving early on multiple occasions, switching off phone and disappearing on precinct without leave to attend cocktails with other political parties, deleting a whole heap of email folders because this staff member couldn’t be bothered reading and actioning these emails, not doing timely finance receipt coding and not picking up calls from constituents in order to avoid work.

This staff member was employed part time by me and part time by another MP. The other MP had been getting this staff member to do household chores and then gave them TOIL (time off in lieu) during weekday – I became aware of this as the staff member was shared between us. I raised this concern with the Relationship Manager of Parliamentary Services in confidence. I was worried about taxpayers’ money being wasted but also worried that this shared ‘Staff Member AB’ was not at work when on TOIL which affected the ability of my constituents to get the right service. Part of my complaint re wasting of money was also focussed around this staff being invited to travel by the other MP to an electorate for an event. Since there were 6 other staff available in that region between various Labour MPs my concern was that there was no need to fly a staff member and pay for their travel and accommodation for multiple days just for them to attend an event in an electorate. Since they worked part time for me, them not being at work in Wellington while traveling to an electorate meant that again this also had direct impact on my office and the workload esp when their trip was not necessary. Instead of investigating this complaint, the Relationship Manager from Parliamentary Services who is a staunch Labour Member went on to directly tell on me to the Labour Whips Office. 

There were two parts to my complaint – of another MP using (our shared) staff to do household chores (never addressed even in Parliamentary Service’s recent press statement) and another of the need to fly a staff member to an event where they would add no value at all while being away from their work in Wellington. Instead of looking into these matters, Parliamentary Services which is a supposedly independent agency threw me in front of the Labour Party Whips who continued to escalate their bullying of me. Directly related to this complaint were the comments from Duncan Webb re Party being more important than Country and aggressively threatening me for going to the Parliamentary Services and raising these concerns.

As issues with this staff member arose, I was also made aware of the fact that they had in their previous workplace tweeted out names of a victim in a workplace sexual harassment case. This info was available to them because they worked at the reception of this organisation and had intercepted an email which they shouldn’t have. After this incidence they had applied for a job with multiple MPs but since others were aware of the history they weren’t hired. I wasn’t aware of these issues but one person later on ended up providing me with the screenshots of those deleted tweets which were concerning. ‘Staff Member AB’ had signed a document in which they had clearly said that they had never had issues at previous work but this was not true. I was concerned re this staff members’ access to constituent cases folder so requested IT to halt this and raised concerns with Parliamentary Services re the information that had been provided to me including the screenshots of (now deleted) Twitter posts. Parliamentary Services as usual ignored this issue, and did not think it breached the contract this staff member had signed when they started work. In addition to this Parliamentary Services and the Labour Whips got very aggressive with me re blocking access to constituent case files for this ‘Staff Member AB.’

For this specific staff member here are some important questions to ask. 

Why was there no independent investigation done despite me raising 66 issues with Parliamentary Services and with the Labour Whips? – You want evidence, I have a trail of emails with dates, time, incidence etc of when this staff wasn’t at work, when they were drinking at work, when they deleted the email folders without actioning them etc. I also have the screenshots provided by other people of their tweets releasing names of the victim of the sexual harassment case. I am happy to provide all the material to an independent inquiry.

In August last year things got to a point where I raised with Labour Whips and Parliamentary Services that I will have to raise the lid on all the issues publicly about not only how incompetent my staff was but also how incompetent both of these organisations were. This was the first time Labour Whips wanted to “resolve the issue” and their proposed solution was that I pay this staff member out and show them the door. I refused to do that on principle and stood my ground – why would I pay out a staff member who has not been able to do their basic tasks. If I was in the wrong, I would have taken this option but as I have always said I raised significant number of issues re this staff and both Parliamentary Services (all the way up to the CEO) and Labour Whips failed to genuinely look into this issue and resolve it. Instead they continued to bring me to meetings on short notice with no support person and kept shouting at me. I stood my ground and did not pay this person out. 

Of course this person has gone to the media and made claims against me. They were directly involved in the waste of taxpayers money as raised with Parliamentary Services. I had raised 66 issues re this staff not only with Relationship Manager, RM’s boss, the CEO of Parliamentary Services, multiple Labour Whips but also with the Chief of Staff of PMO. 

And yet I am the only one here who keeps saying let’s get an independent public investigation so that facts can come out and names can be cleared. 

STAFF 2 – CD

=========

This “Staff Member CD” was on a contract. There were major issues that were identified. 

On one occasion this staff member was supposed to come to work at 8.30am but advised me and other staff that due to having an extra university class they would instead come to work in the afternoon. In the afternoon they said that they would be at work in a few minutes. They didn’t show up to work for 30mins, an hour and even two hours after they had messaged saying they were on their way. 

I was in Wellington and had meetings that day but a different staff member who was in Hamilton was quite concerned that this ‘Staff Member CD’ had not shown up to work despite saying they would be there shortly. The ‘Staff Member CD’ couldn’t be contacted either by phone call or text. The other staff member in Hamilton then contacted Parliamentary Services as they were worried that the person might have had an accident as they were not responding to messages. This staff member also tried to get Parliamentary Services to get in touch with Staff Member CD’s next of kin but those contact details were not available. The ‘Staff Member CD’ eventually showed up to work drunk in the evening – many hours after they were supposed to start the job at 8.30am. Since I was in Wellington I did not witness them being drunk but the Hamilton based staff member laid a written complaint re this incidence and they were assured that there would be an investigation but nothing was ever done about it. Even on the Thursday a few weeks ago when I wrote the Op-Ed Parliamentary Services refused to look into this complaint despite previously saying multiple times that the complaint would be looked into.

On another occasion a constituent from Flagstaff contacted my office saying that they were unhappy that I was wasting taxpayer’s money as someone had thrown a whole heap of magnets and flyers on the side of the road. I travelled to this constituent’s house in Flagstaff and apologised for what had happened. I took photos of the flyers and magnets that had been thrown on the side of the road and advised the Relationship Manager of it. The ‘Staff Member CD’ had gone home at 11am and couldn’t be contacted. Later they advised me in person that they had gone home to take a nap. The email from constituent is available, photos of flyers and magnets that were discarded by this staff on the side of the road are available. There is a lot of evidence but still Parliamentary Services refuse to look into this.

In addition to these incidences, this ‘Staff Member CD’ was twice caught calling their own family member and telling them about constituent case details because the family member knew the constituent well. This was flagged multiple times with the Relationship Manager as there were concerns re breach of constituent’s information. 

This same ‘staff member CD’ once took a photo of a constituent in the community and shared it with their own family because again the constituent was known to the family member of ‘Staff Member CD.’ It was made clear to this staff member that boundaries needed to be respected and if their family knew anyone in a personal capacity it was not ok to share the information with them. My office also received multiple frustrated complaints against this ‘Staff Member CD’ and their work ethics from a church, a school and an NGO. 

Eventually when the job contract for ‘Staff Member CD’ came to an end, I advised them that I was not going to renew it. They wanted to continue working for me but I did not renew their contract – this is an important point. At this stage they started talking about how even though they were a contractor they thought they were really an employee and had been seeking legal advice because they wanted to continue in the job. As I said I did not extend this contract as there were multiple issues as outlined above that had been picked up during their time in my office.

A few months later this ‘Staff Member CD’ asked the Team Leader of the office for a job reference. The Team Leader consulted me and the only thing I said to them was that we have hired staff who had been given references from previous workplaces which did not reflect their work ethics, so it was important to give genuine reference and feedback if we are asked by any future employers. My understanding is that the Team Leader was contacted by this new potential workplace and they did advise them about the issues surrounding this ‘Staff Member CD’ and they did not end up hiring ‘Staff Member CD’. 

So ask yourself this – why has Parliamentary Services not agreed for an independent public investigation? I have all the evidence with dates and times to show when these events took place. I am the one repeatedly asking for a fair trial, but Parliamentary Services, Labour Whips and PMO don’t want a full independent investigation. 

And take note of the fact that this staff member wanted to continue working for me to the point that they had been seeking legal advice on how to extend their contract, while I was the one who did not extend the contract.

So now they say I have bullied them, while they wanted to keep working for me, while I have all these complaints in writing from constituents and other staff re their drinking habits at work, shoddy work ethics and being AWOL from work throwing away all the flyers on the side of the road and going home. And in the end they didn’t get a job at a reputed private company because a true reference of their work was provided. So is it a surprise that this person is now calling me a bully?

STAFF 3 – EF

========

‘Staff Member EF’ was hired from another city on a fixed term contract job. They had previously done a short term contract for me remotely and had visited the Hamilton office a few times and were used to the workplace as well as my style of working along with that of my other staff. When the new fixed term contract job was offered they moved to Hamilton. 

After working two days, ‘Staff Member EF’ offered to resign on day 3 of the job advising the Team Leader in tears that they were missing their family (in a different city) and didn’t think it was a good idea to move away from their parents. They were also concerned that they had taken up a job which they now thought they were not competent to do. 

Before I move forward let me clearly point out that I had absolutely bare minimum contact with this person in the first 2 days – I saw them briefly in presence of other staff for a quick orientation while their laptop was being set up etc. My job as an MP and previously as a GP means that my schedule is very well documented. My calendar can easily prove that I was at multiple events on those first two days. And the photos from these events can easily prove that I was actually at those events. 

So before we move forward, ask yourself this how can I bully someone and make them cry if they have only just started work and I am out of the office. 

On day 3 when this person cried to the Team Leader and I was made aware of this I sat down with this ‘Staff Member EF’ along with their Team Leader and the staff member repeatedly said that they were missing their family and had gone back home everyday in the last few days to stay with the parents. I contacted the Relationship Manager asap requesting them to provide support to this staff as they were in a new city (Hamilton) and obviously didn’t have many social connections. I was advised by the Relationship Manager that support would be provided to this staff but it was many days before the Relationship Manager even caught up with the ‘staff member EF’. 

A few days later ‘staff member EF’ offered to resign again citing similar two issues – the fact that they were missing their family and had been going back home every night to see their parents and that they didn’t think they knew how to use much of the software in the office because of which they felt they had over-committed to the job. Relationship Manager was contacted again and it was again discussed that how ‘Staff Member EF’ be provided comprehensive training to help with Labour Connect, Canva and Microsoft Outlook etc, as well as support systems are put in place so that they don’t feel isolated in the new city. 

From my side, formal meetings were set in place which were minuted to discuss how ‘Staff Member EF’ could be better supported. The Team Leader was present and took the minutes. We also tried to include this person socially – multiple office lunches were set up, other staff took ‘Staff Member EF’ to coffee and even invited them to after-work events to make them feel included. ‘Staff Member EF’ continued to say that they were missing their family and they didn’t even talk to their flatmates in Hamilton as they had spent most of the time going back home to see their parents in a different city. ‘Staff member EF’ was asked about what sort of work they would enjoy and based on this they were taken to meet organisations in their field of interest and given work they would enjoy. 

While we continued to provide support within the office, no objective support was provided from Relationship Manager and Parliamentary Services. I was repeatedly assured that how ‘Staff Member EF’ was just shy and after a few months would start enjoying the job.

‘Staff Member EF’ finally resigned after being at work for 15 days (when Covid leave and non-work days are accounted for). I was out of the office but there was another staff member there when ‘Staff Member EF’ came to the office on their non-work day. ‘Staff member EF’ handed the laptop to this staff member saying that they enjoyed working at the office (with everyone including myself) and appreciated the opportunity that was given to them, but were really missing their family because of which they had been traveling back and forth everyday to their home town. They said that they had decided to move back home with their parents and had had a new job lined up. When the other staff member advised them that they can’t just walk away from the job without serving a notice period, this ‘Staff Member EF’ was surprised and said that they needed to get out of it asap as they had to start the new job and they couldn’t serve the notice period. At this point ‘Staff Member EF’ turned the story around and wrote an email where for the first time they said that they were leaving because of “difference in work culture.” I am able to provide evidence that ‘Staff Member EF’ ended up starting their new job well before they would have served their notice period.

The Relationship Manager who had repeatedly advised me that everything was ok and support was being provided to ‘Staff Member EF’ told me that the best thing was to not ask for the notice period to be served and let this person go. In a further follow up, the Relationship Manager then said that they were always concerned about ‘Staff Member EF’ and how I had managed them and that they (Relationship Manager) had in fact discussed it with me on the phone a few days earlier. This was not true. They went on to give in writing that they had raised these issues with me. However, I advised them that the Team Leader was present as a witness on that call and if anything the Relationship Manager had repeatedly assured me that there was no need to stress and ‘Staff Member EF’ was just shy and was well supported by Parliamentary Services. When the Relationship Manager was advised that there was a witness to the phone call, they froze and were flustered. They threw it back on me asking why the Team Leader was on the call. I advised them that the Team Leader and I had gone to the launch of NZ’s first hydrogen truck in Cambridge and were on our way back when the call took place on the handsfree in the car. The Team Leader was also the manager of ‘Staff Member EF’and as such had the right to be on the phone call. The Team Leader provided evidence in support of me, that what the Relationship Manager had said on the phone (everything is ok) was not what the Relationship Manager had later claimed they had said on the phone (that there were concerns right from the beginning). After this the Relationship Manager disappeared for many weeks – no replies to messages or calls as they had been caught lying red-handed.

Parliamentary Services took many weeks to contact me back and said that they wanted to change my Relationship Manager – not fire them or investigate them – just move them away from looking after me. This is the same Relationship Manager that I had raised concerns on Day 0 of becoming an MP because of their conflict of interest with me as they were a member of the Labour Party and had actively tried to stop me becoming a candidate. I had raised this clearly with Parliamentary Services and they had assured me this would never affect the services they provided to my office. This Relationship Manager is the one who told Labour Whips office about me whistleblowing and raising concerns re wastage of taxpayer’s money, instead of confidentially investigating it. This Relationship Manager is the one who was supposed to assist with one staffing issue after another but failed at every point. This Relationship Manager is the one who was supposed to investigate staff re them turning up to work drunk. This Relationship Manager is the one who was caught red handed fabricating a story re ‘Staff Member EF.’ I raised multiple concerns re this Relationship Manager through every challenge I faced and it wasn’t until over 1.5years after I had raised my first concern that they were removed from looking after my office. BUT none of my complaints were looked into – not against staff, not against Relationship Manager, not against the Labour Whips who continued to bully me. 

Instead I heard that other staff who had left 6-9months ago to move to better paying job were being asked to do exit interview in order to get a story against me when Parliamentary Services had been caught fabricating information.

Parliamentary Services told me in May that they had NOT investigated any claims against me but they don’t think I should be hiring or managing staff.

Ask yourself this – if I am a terrible manager and Parliamentary Services does have complaints from staff members then why would they not investigate independently to give justice to these staff members who have made allegations against me? How is it that I am the only one asking for an independent public inquiry?

Also ask yourself this, despite 1.5 years of “staffing issues” that the Labour Party machinery and PMO are trying to deflect to, how is it that when my lawyer showed up to a meeting within 30minutes the Parliamentary Services and Labour Whips had agreed to let go of all issues and “move on.” Within minutes of having a lawyer in the meeting I had received two emails confirming that the ads were ready to be put in papers and on websites for staff hiring. 

Ask yourself how any of this makes sense? 

I raised the staffing issues – not once but multiple times. All my claims above have a paper trail – date, time, evidence, photos. But Parliamentary Services, Labour Whips and the Prime Minister of NZ continue to decline any independent public inquiry. They talk about making Parliament a safe working place for staff. Do they not want these claims against me investigated so that the three staff above can have their say? And also other staff working for Parliamentary Services can have faith in the system? How is it that their actions and words don’t match? “Gaurav is a bully, his staff have made claims, we want Parliament to be a safe space, but under no circumstance will we have an independent public inquiry.”

And while you are asking all of this, don’t forget that I was the one who raised the concerns re bullying. The Prime Minister says the threshold for a public inquiry has not been met. What is the threshold for an independent public inquiry? 3 of my staff making allegations against me is good enough to do media stand ups every day but not enough to have a public inquiry. Multiple junior and senior MPs in the Labour Caucus saying they have been bullied (I have already provided some of the screenshots) but their wellbeing does not seem to be a priority for the Prime Minister. 

If Parliamentary Services, Labour Whips, PMO and the PM are right and their conscience is clear they would have no issue having two independent public inquiries – one against me re any claims that have been allegedly made and another re bullying culture within the Labour Party (including around Kieran McAnulty who bullied me). As the senior MP said on the tape which was provided to Newshub, Prime Minister doesn’t want an investigation because she is worried about other things being dug up which will not show the Labour Party in a good light.

At the end of the day, everything I have outlined above shows that the system is set up in a way that there is no opportunity for a fair trial. I appreciate that Parliament is not the best of working environment and there are positive changes that need to be made to remedy this. But if there is no independent investigation into any claims then how do staff or MPs have faith in this system. Over the last few weeks I have heard from multiple Parliamentary staff who have laid serious concerns re Senior MPs and Ministers but at no point were these claims investigated. When it’s a junior MP these allegations are used to suppress them and silence the MP, when it’s a Senior Minister the staff are instead silenced. In all these instances Parliamentary Services repeatedly fail to uphold the principles they talk about. And the Whips offices work with them to suppress any independent and open inquiry which would help all parties put their evidence and facts on the table so that a genuine effort can be made to positively change the workplace environment. My fight here isn’t about my case alone, many other MPs have been in this situation and so have staff and all of us have found that the system refuses to listen to us and carry out an independent investigation while virtue signalling all the way about changing workplace culture. The way the Prime Minister, Labour Party and Parliamentary Services have handled things in the last 2.5 weeks alone sends a message to the general public that people in power are above accountability. These same people make workplace rules and regulations that everyone else has to follow, but they are themselves not accountable. 

The Labour Party machinery has been actively deflecting from the concerns I have raised and a Senior Minister said to me in clear terms that “Labour machinery will not only destroy your political career but also your medical career. Look at any recent example of people who have gone against a Party.”

My points remain clear:

1. What is the Prime Minister hiding that she doesn’t want an investigation?

2. Why don’t they independently investigate me about staffing issues so that he can get a fair trial?

3. Why did the independent Parliamentary Services share with the Labour Party the details about my whistle-blowing about Parliamentary misuse of funds? 

4. Despite screenshots which show that Labour Party caucus members have been bullied by Kieran McAnulty, why would the Prime Minister not do an investigation against this person who she’s gone on to promote?

5. When the Prime Minister said that I would get a fair trial at the caucus meeting, why did she not mention the pre-determined meeting that she had already set up?

by Wally Richards

Germinating Seeds
There are two basic places to germinate seeds, one is where they will ultimately grow and mature the other is in suitable containers to germinate and then to transplant out into open ground or larger containers latter on.

Firstly it is always best to plant any seed in the spot where it will grow and mature.

The reason for this is because when a seed germinates it will send down a tap root and if in open ground in a friable soil that root can be very long.

If on the other hand we germinate in a container or seedling tray that root will be limited in the depth of the tray and growing medium.

It is not practical to grow every thing at the maturity site, especially when we are getting an early start or growing out of season.

There are some seed types which should only be grown in their maturity site and only planted when conditions are favorable.

I often see seedlings for sale in punnets of plants which should never be offered this way because novice gardeners, that know no better, may purchase and have poor results..

The worst example of this is root crops such as carrots and parsnips which should only be direct sown as in any other form they will not produce a normal root.

An exception to this is a carrot that is round in shape and does not produce a long edible root.

Beetroot and onions are seedlings that will transplant but are better to direct sow. (Direct sow means planting seed where they will mature) Spring onion is an exception.

Corn, beans and peas should all be direct sown and you will get far better crops if you do so.

Larger seeds are easy to handle and can be placed where you want them to grow without having to thin out later on. Silverbeet is another one that would be best direct sown.

If you want to start off seeds early in open ground try this method.

Make a trench about 100mm deep and the same wide, mow your lawn and collect the clippings which you then pack fresh into the bottom of your trench.

(Note if the grasses are in seed in the lawn it maybe best not to use the clippings to prevent moving grass weeds to your garden)

Pack firmly to about 80mm then sprinkle a little compost over the clippings to cover.

Next sprinkle Wallys Calcium and Health or garden lime and Wallys Unlocking Your Soil along the trench along with foods such as chook manure, sheep manure pellets, blood & bone, Bio Boost and Neem Tree Powder.

Once again cover lightly with weed free compost (Purchased)

Next sow your seeds such as peas, beans, sweet corn etc. (Peas are hardy but others will depend where you are in NZ to when you start)

Once the seeds are spaced out along the row then spray them with Magic Botanic Liquid (MBL) at 20 mls per litre. This really speeds up germination.

Then cover the seeds with more compost and water down using a fine rose watering can with MBL added.

For those that have problems with either cats, birds or late frosts then make some hoops out of No8 wire and place them along the row with a clearance of about 200mm in the middle of the row.

Place crop cover over the hoops and on one side cover with soil and on the other side with lengths of old timber or similar.

That allows you to easily take off to tend to the plants if needed. The heat from the grass clippings will warm the soil which greatly helps germination.

Once well developed then you can remove the hoops and cover and store for future use.

Now lets look at doing similar but in seedling trays or by using cell packs or punnets.

If you keep the punnets and cell packs that you have purchased in the past then these are good value to use.

Wash them out in hot water so they are nice and clean.

To fill I use only purchased compost of high quality such as from Daltons or Oderings.

I have found that seed raising mixes are a gimmick and most of the ones I have looked at are too expensive and do not work as well as a good quality compost for most seed germination projects.

Think about this; outside in Nature we find all sorts of soils types even straight gravel or sand where seeds do not appear to have much trouble germinating, without any special mixes from mankind.

One important aspect to consider when germinating in seedling trays is to have heat from a heat pad.

Some garden shops, pet supplies and brew shops have heat pads which can be used for germination.

I place a sheet of polystyrene block on a bench to direct the heat upwards then sit the seed trays on the heat pad.

If you go to wholesale fish outlets or fish departments of supermarkets you will likely find used polystyrene trays free or for a few dollars.

You can sit your heat pad in the tray and being white it will provide lots of good reflected light.

If the pad you buy is a higher temperature than you require then cover the pad with sand and keep the sand moist. Sit your seedling trays on the sand.

Fill your seedling tray or cell packs to about two thirds full with purchased compost as above.

Carefully sprinkle a few seeds over the compost keeping them apart so they each have their own space.

Spray then seeds with MBL and Mycorrcin mixed together in a trigger sprayer with non chlorinated water.

Once the compost and seeds are wet then cover seeds with more compost (You can sieve it if you like) and wet down with your spray.

Now you spray the tray at least twice a day to keep the compost moist using the same trigger mix.

Once a few seeds have germinated and before they start stretching for light get them out into natural light from overhead such as on a bench in a glasshouse.

If you do not have a suitable place then place your polystyrene box outside with a sheet of glass over it.

The seedlings will need spraying still but off the heat pad a lot less. Make sure the seedlings are in good light but not strong sun light to burn them.

If you are worried about them at night you can bring the polystyrene box inside or onto a porch.

When the seedling are big enough to handle prick them out and pot them into small pots once again using the compost or plant out in your garden.

If you spray the seedlings a couple of days before planting out then you do not need to harden them off.

(letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph NZ)

Dear Sir,

There has been much said in recent days about the state of reporting by MSM in this country. They are of course not alone in their obfuscation, when it comes to the Covid-19 narrative in particular. Many are of the opinion Governments and other parties are in collusion on this matter, the language being the same the world over as numerous examples show. There are clear and definite lines of communication and persuasion, which emanate from the same source. This is no longer up for debate.

While our television, radio and press, via traditional means or on-line, attempt to bring us the news they believe matters, and some of it does, there has been for some time an apparent deliberate stance, to shape the narrative in keeping with government lines. This is most noticeable with one in particular, I am of course referring to the Wellington based, Stuff.

Their constant, and there is no other word for it, attack on many New Zealanders is worrying at best. Never in all my years a Kiwi, have I witnessed such ill will aimed at a section of New Zealand society, if indeed the people from all walks of life who make up Voices for Freedom could be deemed a section.

It is the purpose of reporters to do just that. It is not their bailiwick to cast aspersion, to taunt, or present a false account to their readers. Their continual myopic assault on good people whose aim is to build strong and co-operative neighbourhoods, to offer support for those in need, and bring fairness to the forefront, can only be measured in terms of abuse, not only of journalistic credential, but of the people they go after. It is reminiscent of all dictatorships who wish to browbeat citizens into submission. That it should come from an independent commercial enterprise is disturbing in the extreme, the reason can only be due to direction by another party.

Stuff is a law unto themselves, naturally driven by money, some of which the Government pays. That they bow to Jacinda Ardern, gives them free reign in all they do, and permission to go after whoever they judge abnormal when measured against their own morality; a morality clearly wanting. In adopting this posture they are denying valuable and important information to their audience, knowledge that could save lives, indeed enhance its quality. The irony being they ask for financial support for their ongoing deceit, the unwitting reader who pays effectively placing a noose around their own neck. But such is the mind of the media psychopath when all is said and done.

So, Anna, Nadine, Paula, Michelle and Keith Lynch to name a few, you have the responsibility to do your job properly, to report on what is actually true, not what the Prime Minister and others tell you is true. It is time for you able people to remove the scales from your eyes, to see the world as it is, and to bury the hatchet of judgement. You need to understand the world has moved on, masks, mandates and lockdowns no longer the issue it was.

You can start by asking the Government why it persists in maintaining a climate of fear, when Corona virus is just that, from which the majority recover as they do the common cold. The mRNA vaccine is the problem, not the virus. This is now common knowledge.

For my part, peaceful living is the better way but others are not so forgiving, the guillotine option having appeal. Many now regard you as a joke; others as evil, still others angry at your style of journalism and so-called reporting. If push ever did come to shove, the people rise up and violence ensues, much of the blood will be laid at your door.

It is time now for some common sense, and an appeal to all in the responsible position of informing the public on matters, which affect our daily lives. It is down to you to restore the balance now lacking, to be as good as you know you are; to report the truth, to listen to others, to give them a chance to tell you what they think and why, and to be open to good evidence, backed by reliable science when it comes to personal health choices.

In closing I will leave you this question to consider. How is it, that leading infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, in their tens of thousands, have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of prevailing Covid-19 policies, and have signed a declaration to that effect can be wrong, when a $1 media company, at the arse end of the world, can be right in all it says and does on Covid-19 and all it entails?

It’s time to play nice…

James
Waikanae

---

See also this comment by Karl du Fresne on his blog “And they wonder why media credibility has nosedived”

(ACT media release)

“Labour is failing to deliver anything other than inflated budgets and project delays, with only two of its 15 highest cost infrastructure projects delivered on time and on budget,” says ACT’s Transport spokesperson Simon Court.

“Documents obtained by ACT show the shoddy delivery to date, and also highlight the dire state of Labour’s $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade programme as well.

“More than half of the ongoing New Zealand Upgrade projects are marked as code red by Waka Kotahi, meaning they’re blowing out their timeframes and failing to keep to budget.

“At the beginning of 2022, four of the 15 announced were measured as being in a red state of health, by the end of April ten of the 18 announced were in the red zone.

“Labour’s inability to deliver a project on time and under budget is a disaster for taxpayers. Inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. When the Government throws around cash like this, it drives up the cost of everything.

“Michael Wood has clearly lost control of the purse strings in his department but refuses to take responsibility. Despite his inability to deliver the projects already underway he persists with announcing grandiose schemes like building a new Mt Vic Tunnel that adds no extra capacity for drivers.

“ACT’s repeal and replacement of the RMA would allow for faster infrastructure development, and we’d take the politics out of transport and infrastructure and get central and local government working together through 30-year infrastructure partnerships, devolving revenue and responsibility to regional governments and the private sector, while strengthening accountability and oversight from central government.

“We need investment in high-quality infrastructure to boost jobs, wages and growth. But the current arrangements for delivering infrastructure are inadequate and politicised.

“Infrastructure, with its very long time horizons, is unsuited to decision-making by politicians beset by three-year tunnel vision. By setting plans decades in advance, we can avoid the on-again, off-again uncertainty created by the political cycle which deters councils and private infrastructure investors from undertaking ambitious projects.”

‍

Anyone who questioned what was really going on with the Scamdemic was subject to a lot of abuse from Leftists — and the Jacinda government’s presstitutes still dish out heaps of it– but they were wrong and we were right.