“Entrepreneur Matt Smith, who works with legendary investor Doug Casey, discusses surviving the Great Reset. From his getaway location in South America, he talks expatriation; holding your ground; creating parallel societies, structures, economies; and wealth generation…for the months, if not, years of turmoil ahead.”
What seems very likely are parallel societies and economies, like the Speakeasies that sprang up during the American (alcohol) Prohibition era. It’s hard for the Jacinda government to punish cafés who tell her to Stuff off, but easier to punish places that sell alcohol: she just needs to tell them “your liquor license will be taken off you if you don’t comply with my dictates”. There is no shortage of Jacindanistas who will go around snitching as they have done for months over the face nappies. —Eds
Anja Wilhelmer says: “All Yoga classes outdoor and indoor are canceled. Only online one-on-one yoga is available at the moment. I am very sorry. Following the new covid guidelines we are not allowed to practice yoga outdoors or indoors without excluding members. We are not prepared to do that… no controlled entry and exit point and we don’t own the park. I will keep you posted should there be any changes. Take care and keep breathing.”
Maga Mike tells us, “I just got confirmation that Comrade Jacinda and Gayford have bought a farm on Fryer Road in Orepuki, Southland. They have been sourcing trophy stags from farms in Te Anau. Rumor is that it is going to be some sort of hunting and fishing tourist lodge similar to the one which operates in Lake Tekapo. Groundswell NZ will be interested to find out.”
It would be great if she would move there full time, but unfortunately that’s wishful thinking.
Why hasn’t the Jacinda government created these, you ask? Probably because as we’ve seen, it’s useless at building anything, only destroying. Back in this February post we suggested that they should get on with building Quarantine Camps for political opponents in good Communist fashion.
Team: Jacinda (J), Nanaia (N), Andrew (A), Grant (G)
Chaser: The Governess (TG)
Host: Bradley (B) B: Welcome to The Chase. Can a team of 4 players, who “say” they’ve never met before, work together to win thousands of dollars? I certainly hope so. There’s only one thing standing in their way – The Chaser. The chase is on!
So, let’s meet my team.
J: I’m Jacinda and my friends tell me I’m a natural leader. That’s why I’m in seat 1. My vision is to “reset” the way we govern and, ultimately, influence every sphere of life in Aotearoa, transforming it into the kindest and most caring country on Earth. N: I’m Nanaia and I also like to be in charge, though I’m more of a steel hand than a velvet glove kinda girl. It was easy to intimidate the rest of my team, so that’s why I’m in seat 2. I specialise in asset stripping and redistribution. Is it possible to have some picture questions, please? A: I’m Andrew and I used to be in charge… until I realised I wasn’t very good at it. I work in Health and spend huge sums of money for very “little” return. There’s a joke in there for those that know me at home… eh, Mum! Happy to be in any seat at all! G: I’m Grant and I always wanted to be in seat 4 because I’m a natural gambler and want the big offer. I work in Finance and spend even huger sums than Andrew.
B: And that’s my team. First up, it’s Jacinda! So Jacinda, tell us a bit about yourself.
J: Firstly, I’d like to say Kia Ora from Aotearoa, Bradley.
B: Never heard of it! I love New Zealand though!
J: I live with my daughter and my minor TV celebrity partner, and I successfully juggle motherhood with my career as a Kindness, Well-being & Inclusivity visionary. I work intimately with ALL government departments and specialise in leadership, PR and communications, rarely in that order. I feel strongly that traditional government attributes, like fiscal responsibility and governing largely for the majority, are outdated concepts and need to be replaced by a “new normal”. Through my influential work I aim to transform Aotearoa into a paradise for minorities and…
B: Alright, alright! We ain’t got all night, J. Give it a rest! You sound like one of them party political broadcast thingies. Now, what do you do in your spare time?
J: I enjoy holding mock daily press conferences, answering pre-approved questions, smiling patronisingly and waving my hands around so much I confuse the sign language interpreter.
B: And if you win some money today what would you do with it?
J: I’d donate it to my own charity which I’ve just started – The Kind and Caring Trust – which funds advertisements and billboards of myself smiling and saying ‘Be Kind.’ We already get substantial funding from the government for this vital humanitarian work – eh, Grant? I’ve never met Grant before, by the way.
B: Well, all the best. Are you ready? Your time starts….. now.
The word “democracy” comes from what language?
J: Oh, now it’s vaguely familiar….is it Japanese?
B: Wrong, Greek.
Complete the phrase “Oh, what a tangled web we weave….”
J: eh…”when we want to knit a sleeve”?
B: Wrong, …”when first we practice to deceive”
J: Makes no sense to me but it’s got a nice ring to it.
B: A person from what race first reached the South Pole?
J: I know this…Maori!
B: Wrong, Norwegian.
J: Are you sure about that? Nanaia, didn’t you tell me they were Maori? Not that we’ve ever met before this show.
N: I told you we possibly, almost certainly, may have discovered Antarctica first. I didn’t say we reached the South Pole.
B: And all that yakking means we’ve run out of time. Jacinda you scored $0. You’re definitely NOT a much better player than that. Which Chaser would you like to meet at the table?
J: The Secretary General of the UN, please.
B: You’ve never watched this show before, ‘ave you girl? Right, let’s meet the Chaser! And tonight it’s…. old frosty knickers herself — The Governess!
TG: Well Jacinda, you may be an influential power in government but your general knowledge couldn’t power a 12W light bulb.
J: That’s so kind!
TG: Oh, I can be much kinder than that, believe me!
B: Let’s put some offers on the table.
TG: A low offer of $1000….and a high offer of ….$20,000!
We have regrettably had our last Kapiti Historical Society talk for 2021. John Robinson spoke on Hone Heke and the 1840s northern rebellion back in October and we had an audience of about 20. Obviously, many people were reluctant to come out while the Jacinda government’s covid Level 2 was operating. Those who did get along heard a very interesting talk on the rebel chief who was opposed at the time by most of the tribal leaders in the North.
Over the last three months we had hoped to have sessions led by:
· Professor Mark Dickson from Auckland University on Kapiti’s Changing Coastline
· Jim Bolger on how history repeats and political reminiscences
· David Hadfield on his father Barry who was first Mayor of the Kapiti District.
Mark couldn’t get out of Auckland; David preferred to wait until the covid situation improved and we felt that as Jim would be a big attraction, we would save him for 2022.
Taking a break
John and Lesley Robinson have decided to step back from the KHS administration after three years of devoted service. So we will need some assistance from others in 2022. Let us know if you would be able to help.
There was an eclectic range of talks in 2021
It’s noteworthy that we had seven sessions in 2021 on a wide range of subjects.
· Andy Oakley on the one valid Treaty of Waitangi
· John Mclean on Parihaka
· Myself on Gallipoli
· Glenda Robb on the Queen Elizabeth Park Biodiversity Project
· Larry Keim on the Marines in Kapiti and films taken at the time
· Desiree Jury on the historical novel
· John Robinson on Hone Heke
Thanks to all you folk for your contributions to the programme.
Appreciation for their efforts
Thanks to John for his co-coordination of the group; to Lesley and Pam and others who have assisted with the suppers; to Larry Keim and David Hadfield who have provided technical support; to Gordon Dickson who has been the liaison with the Kapiti Uniting Church and introduced many of the speakers; and those who have given votes of thanks.
Looking ahead
It’s not easy! We live in an uncertain world and the future is very hard to predict. As mentioned above, we have three speakers ready to go if circumstances permit, and other names have been suggested.
We’ll keep you informed.
Thank you for your support in 2021 and we hope you have a relaxing festive season with family and friends.
Best wishes,
Roger Childs, with John Robinson and Gordon Dickson
The Justice Minister wrote to the Select Committee overseeing the Three Strikes repeal asking it to examine whether people already sentenced under Three Strikes should have their sentences re-evaluated.
Kris Faafoi
These people were sentenced under the law at the time of their offence, now Faafoi wants to re-sentence them under a different law. When he announced his intention to repeal Three Strikes he said it would not be retrospective.
He said in Parliament at First Reading “We acknowledge that there are victims in this and there will be no revictimisation of those people during this process, because there is no retrospective aspect of this Bill”.
But in a letter to the Select Committee, he said, “Cabinet considered how the Bill should respond to those who have already been sentenced under the law.”
Faafoi acknowledged in Parliament that re-sentencing these offenders would revictimise people. It is frankly appalling that he and his Cabinet colleagues, who claim they are the Government of kindness, would do this to victims.
In answer to Written Parliamentary Questions from the ACT Party about whether the Government consulted with victims before it announced it would repeal the legislation Faafoi said, “given the Bill is not currently retrospective, so does not allow for re-sentencing, directly contacting victims was not appropriate.”
Faafoi didn’t bother to even consult victims – and now he wants to repeal the sentences of the people who carried out serious violent offences against them.
Three Strikes offenders make up just one per cent of all convictions, they have an average of 75 convictions, they are the worst and most violent offenders New Zealand has seen. They aren’t behind bars for petty theft or minor crimes. They have beaten, raped and murdered people.
Faafoi needs to stick to his word that he won’t re-traumatise victims. This law should not be retrospective, and ACT will continue to fight that every step of the way.
Parliamentary Written Question:
Reply 52344 (2021) has been answered Portfolio: Justice (Hon Kris Faafoi)
Question: On what dates did the Minister consult the Chief Victims Advisor on the proposed repeal of the Three Strikes Law and what was the advice provided to him by the Chief Victims Advisor?
Reply: I meet with the Chief Victims Advisor on a relatively regular basis where a number of issues are canvassed. Ministry officials met with the Chief Victims Advisor on the 19th of May to discuss the potential impact on victims should the legislation allow resentencing.
The Chief Victims Advisor discussed the importance of working closely with their office and our Court Victims Advisors on any direct contact with victims. The advice was reflected in Ministry official’s advice to government. However, given the bill is not currently retrospective, so does not allow for resentencing, directly contacting victims was not appropriate.
Submissions close on 9 December on the Pae Ora draft new Health Act
The Government is rushing through [as is usual for them] the biggest Health System Reforms in 40 years. All the DHB’s are going and there is a whole new system just for Maori — who will have two systems to use: the Maori System and the one “for other population groups” (as defined by Section 7).
The objection below has been filed. It points out serious problems. After reading it — here — you may want to object, too.
This Bill creates two health systems. My children will benefit from having the use of two systems, a great double dip for them. As a parent I should rejoice that they are better off than the 84% of their fellow New Zealanders and their racially excluded classmates of other ethnicities whether Chinese, Indian or ‘other’.
The provision of a health system, like the provision of an education system must, in a democracy, be based on criteria other than the purely political.
It was stated inPolitics and Public Health: “Public health is grounded principally in science, and on objective/rational consideration of the evidence.” The author goes on to consider political interventions that displace that cornerstone. Like an Old Testament prophet, the author foresees exactly what is happening here: “Public health advocates also fear that the voice of public health scientists will be suppressed or discounted in the political process, particularly when evidence conflicts with positions that are grounded in non scientific considerations.” (My emphasis added)
On the objectives of the Bill:
For convenience to the purposes of this submission, I set out particular objectives enumerated in the Bill:
(1) “achieve equity by reducing health disparities among New Zealand’s population groups, in particular for Māori” Section 3;
(2) “to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi)” Section 5,
(3) “requires health entities to be guided by the health system principles, which, among other things, are aimed at improving the health system for Māori and raising hauora Māori outcomes” (S6(a));
(4) “by engaging with Māori to develop, deliver, and monitor services and programmes designed to raise hauora Māori outcomes” (s7(b))’
(5) undertaking promotional and preventative measures to protect and improve Māori health and wellbeing (s13). Section 18 relating to the Maori Health authority and exclusively the right of Maori is “to achieve the best possible health outcomes for whānau, hapū, and Māori in general”;
They are so general and ill-defined as to have no determinable meaning. In other words the politicians, the courts, the providers can interpret what is meant according to their own perceptions — a scenario for chaos. Even the political objectives should be based on evidence and not be merely a policy imposition made at the behest of a highly effective small pressure group. Objective (2) is a purely political one.
General Grounds of Concern
The Bill runs counter to the underlying ethos of New Zealand culture — equality for all. I am fully aware that in our Post Modernist age, Enlightenment thinking and the age of reason are trashed as being part of the oppressive colonialist mindset and must be ignored. However, the average non-elitist kiwi still thinks that reason, usually thought of as common sense and the kiwi sense of decency and fair-play are evocations of the principles of the Enlightenment, some aspects of which are captured in the NZ Bill of Rights Act.
The controversial assumption that inequality of outcomes result from a ‘racist’ Health System
The intellectual contribution to the underpinnings of the Bill are summarised in excerpts from certain papers used as backgrounders for this bill. Jones R, Crowshoe L, Reid P, et al in Educating for Indigenous Health Equity: An International Consensus Statement. Acad Med. 2019; 94 (4) – 512-9 say this about NZ: “Medical education has historically been complicit in furthering the goals of colonisation and perpetuating inequitable structures, processes and outcomes. As a first step, institutions need to acknowledge their historical and contemporary role in the colonial project, including acceptance of evidence that health professionals and health systems contribute to the maintenance of health inequities.”
All these claims are mere assertions and not based on evidence, emperical or otherwise.
The dubious assumption that a Dual Health System will succeed in getting equality of outcomes
The Bill states that by providing a Maori Health Authority better outcomes are guaranteed. Again no data from studies are there to support it. However, there is plenty of evidence pointing to the likelihood of very little gain. In a comprehensive study (being a review of numerous reviews) Interventions to improve cultural competency in healthcare: a systematic review of reviews by M Truon. Y Paradies & Naomi Priest, the learned authors stated:
“Care must also be taken to avoid over-focusing on ‘culture’. Although cultural differences may worsen the problem of differential access and discrimination, broader factors such as poor education and poverty may play a greater role in the poorer health outcomes of some individuals and groups in the community [60]. However income and race/ethnicity as risk factors for health disparities can overlap and discrimination is often a driver of socio-economic disparities.” [61].
The benefit/cost effectiveness is not considered
In Interventions to improve cultural competency in healthcare (cited above) the experts state that a body, such as Parliament/Ministry must do the research. They emphasise how crucial it is.
“There is also need for research to examine the time and resources required to implement interventions in addition to identifying the most feasible and effective approaches [6]. This is particularly important for organizational or systemic approaches where cost-benefit/effectiveness is an important consideration”.
There is nothing in the White Paper or elsewhere that shows that any in depth cost-benefit-effectiveness research has been undertaken. In light of ill defined goals such a task would be impossible.
The claim the “This [new dual system] will reduce system complexity”
This claim is made in the preamble to the Bill with not a shred of evidence. There is no cost-benefit analysis, again. However, the introduction of a highly complex new second health system is passed off with this rather astounding claim.
Looking at specific clauses in the Bill
Lack of definitions
I will not detail all the definition problems, but these are some:
S5 “to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi)”. Conspicuously absent is any attempt to define what the specific principles of the Treaty are that pertain specifically to healthcare provision for all New Zealanders. It is a carte blanche for the politicians to proclaim what they decide those principles are.
The attempted definition in the Bill’s introduction says nothing to assist interpretation and ascertain meaning:“The Bill is intended to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi). A descriptive clause sets out the provisions that give effect to the Crown’s obligations. The Bill also sets out principles that will guide decision-makers, incorporating the concepts of the principles for the health system discussed by the Waitangi Tribunal in the WAI 2575 Inquiry”.
‘Equity’ used in Section 3 not defined. It is a meaningless phrase unless adequately contexturalised. Equity is defined in World Health terms — Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome. Is that is what is meant?
‘Equitable’ is used numerous times without definition. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines it thus: ” treating everyone equally; fair”. Does it mean ‘equally’ or ‘fairly’? There is a significant difference. Is it equality of mortality rates? Or making sure Maori visit their doctors as often as a pakeha hypocondriac?
‘Maori‘ is not defined. Will it be the definition of Māori ethnic population by Statistics NZ, “ethnicity is the ethnic group or groups a person identifies with or has a sense of belonging to.” Māori ethnic population is the population who identify themselves with Māori ethnicity. It is a measure of cultural affiliation (in contrast to race, ancestry, nationality, or citizenship).
Section 7 provides “the health system should provide opportunities for Māori to exercise decision-making authority on matters of importance to Māori and for that purpose, have regard to both—
(i) the strength or nature of Māori interests in a matter
(ii) the interests of other health consumers and the Crown in the matter. Giving priority to one race is abhorrent. This is amplified by saying the Crown and Health Consumers are twins for the purposes of the legislation.
Section 18 provides “to achieve the best possible health outcomes for whānau, hapū, and Māori in general”. There is no equivalent provision for non-Maori. And who determines ‘best possible’? The hospital that gives you second best, pharmac who gives you an unsatisfactory generic? The idea is fine if applicable to all — but what will the costs be?
Oh, Government of kindness and Wellbeing why are you going to pass an Act that purports to remove the current system — proudly identified by most Kiwi’s — because you have decided it is “racist” and worse, that it is founded on “white privileged colonialist health principles.” And so we will have a dual system based on race/culture.
Such a monumental change should go to the people. Your election manifesto breathed not a word of this. You have given mere days to make objections. You have not advertised it like you advertised Three Waters. That was propaganda as ruled by the Public Services Commissioner and had to be withdrawn. Is there transparent democracy in NZ? Make it so.
Can the ‘Leftards’ not see the irony in promoting an answer to what they claim is a ‘racist’ system, one that actually is racist? Obviously not. —Eds
Waikanae Watch 