TONY BLAIRS ‘North Korean’Sweeping Powers are permanent in New Zealand.. Not one political crony in the cesspit of Wellington will openly share this information with the citizens of NZ.

Tony Blair was reported in the Daily Mail News as referring to ‘Tony Blair’s Stalker Squad’. He had quietly set up a Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in the UK for those that were called ‘Suspects to be detained’ without breaking the law under an extended mental health condition namely ‘fixated’ behavior.

Fixated Threat Assessment Centre is a collaboration between Scotland Yard Police, Parliamentary Police and special Mental Health Officials, where the government has the power to detain anyone whom opposed the governments narratives. Citizens whom had not committed a crime, with was no criminal evidence. Thus being a blurred line between criminal and clinical investigations.

Because of the passing of a confidentiality legislation suspects name were not known, therefore no-one knew how any detained suspect there were, or their names.  The Atlantic Times reported ‘UK Law Bans the public from Criticizing the Government’ British subjects being detailed in a mental health unit under Blair’s little known laws’. Detainee’s had little or no right to appeal, a number of people falling prey to Blairs North Korean tactics.

Outspoken MP Andrew Lansley reported “the law can be used to target anyone of religious or political belief. The Government has widened the definition of mental health intervention”.
Evening Standard 27th May 2007 was headed ‘Shambles of Blairs Plan’ referring to Blairs draconian wartime powers. Where if citizens were questioned by police and did not comply they were issued with up to a 5,000 pound fine. The Government had such sweeping powers that Police could stop and question anyone. The government analyzed more than 10,000 suspects. No-one knows how many were or are being detained in the Threat Assessment Centres.

Detainee’s that undergo mental health interventions without having a mental health disorder. Civil matters in a private court where the govt chose an advocate to represent the suspect. The suspect not knowing that a court hearing was happening, no lawyer. Suspects could be detained indefinitely.

2017 the New Zealand Government decided to pilot Tony Blairs draconian North Korean Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in New Zealand. On the July 1st 2019 under the Labour led government the Tony Blair Fixated Threat Assessment Centre became permanent in New Zealand. A collaboration between Parliamentary Police, NZ Police and special Mental Health Officials.

An OIA request was made requesting details of how many suspects have been detained in the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in NZ. Age, ethnicity etc., between 2017 – 2020. The response from National Intelligence NZ Police to all questions where responses were requested were given a ‘Non Applicable’ response. In other words “the New Zealand public will never know”. Kia-ora North Korea.
Carol Sakey WakeUpNZ


GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ACTS Blog Posts View all Categories


Debate on extending the term in Parliament has been rejected twice already. The so called Independent Electoral Review has proposed a referendum on extending the term of Parliament from 3 to 4 yrs, two past referendums rejected this proposal so why another one. The previous polls in 1967 and 1990 were both defeated by more than 2/3rds. With the levels of distrust in this non transparent government why on earth should we give them another year to further plunder NZ?

This is the review stage, public consultation is open until 17th July 2023 and a final report goes to the government in November this year after the general election. How much clout do the people have as far as referendums are concerned in NZ if the people of NZ wanted to hold a referendum on this instead of the Government and the result concluded 2/3s opposed the extension of the parliamentary term  from 3 to 4 yrs. Citizens Initiated Referendums are Non Binding therefore it’s the govt that has the end decision making rights to make that decision not the people – citizens of NZ. Parliament could just not have a referendum and pass an amendment to the Electoral Act that requires 75% majority of the House. David Seymore quickly rubbished the whole electoral review. He said “It’s a waste of time and a major left wing beat up and does not solve a single problem that’s NZrs face.

The review in question recommend eliminating the ‘coat-tailing’ rule. Allowing a party that wins at lease one electorate seat to bring more MPs into the House, even if the party vote is below 5% threshold. ACT for instance in 2008  received just 3.65% of the party vote but took 5 seats on the back of winning the Epsom electorate. The eligible electoral voting public of New Zealand are not taken into consideration at all. The we have that very famous Left wing Build Back Budget of Grant Robertson with NZ Happiness Indicators introduced by Ardern to replace the prior GDP (Gross Domestic Product).  The Happiness Indicators one cannot even measure a  persons happiness so how can they possibly measure a countries happiness.

12th November 2022 RNZ reported PM Jacinda Ardern said that legislation will be drafted for making the voting age 16 years old. 6th June 2023 RNZ reported the Electoral Review recommends voting age lowered to 16, party threshold to 3.5%. An independent panel of experts are considering public submissions on the extended Parliamentary term of 3 to 4 years and lowering the age to vote to 16years. 58 public meeting have reported to have been held and more than 1700 submissions is now reported and a swathe of draft recommendations, they say to make electoral laws fairer.

The Draft Recommendations are:- (1) Lowering the voting age for general elections to 16, extending overseas voting rules (2) Extending the voting rights to all prisoners, not just those sentenced to 3 or 4years jail term (3) Holding a referendum on extending the Parliamentary Term from 3 to 4 years (4) lowering the party vote threshold from 5 to 3.5%, abolishing the ‘coat and tail rule’.(5) Restricting political donations to registered voters, rather than organization, capping them at $30,000 to each party and its candidates per electoral cycle whilst reducing the amount that can be anonymously donated. (6) Re-writing the Electoral Act to modernise its language  (7) Requiring the Electoral Commission to give effect the Treaty Of Waitangi and (8) MMP

The Panel chairwoman is Deborah Hart. The Independent Electoral Review was established by the Minister of Justice Andrew Little. Deborah Hart is a highly experienced Director Lawyer and CEO. The other members of the Review Panel are Maori Academic and Political Commentator Dr. Maria Bargh, electoral law experty Prof Andrew Geddis, law student Alice Mander former Chief Electoral Officer Robert Peden, lecturer and NZ Election Study co lead Dr Lara Greaves

NOTE: These are non-elected individuals that are key people whom are making proposals as to how NZ Elections are to be, that affect every New Zealander, man woman and child. The people never elected them in to direct our country in the way elections are held in NZ. Faafoi also announced in the House that consultation included other groups such as Maori Organizations, Youth Organization, Universities and the NZ Law Society. Thus calling this a broad public, cross party support. This did not fit the term “ Broad public consultation with the people of NZ, in fact this left out probably 4 ½ million people from even being consulted

(2)Lowering the voting age to 16 should cause many voting public concern. How young is too young? Green Party are definitely for it as is Labour however they masked this by requesting a Review Panel, not wanting the public to see this as their decision.

Just because 16year olds can leave school and obtain a drivers licence does that give them the right to be part of the electoral voting in our country? How much real world experience do they have, are they still hanging onto mum and dads coat tails?  Yes there maybe a very small amount of 16 year olds that maybe interested but is that enough to lower the voting age. If the Govt holds a referendum will this be binding on the govt or non binding.? Do the voting eligible citizens of NZ actually have a ‘end decision making right? For example a 16 yr old may understand the road code but does he or she understand how families, the elderly employers, employers are effected by govt policies. ??? Its important to protect the majority of the public in New Zealand, not promoting 16 year olds that have no idea what its like to survive in this day and age.

Young people, students are the political football, a NZ Government that focuses on gender and sexuality, that now talks about requiring students to have digital licenses to protect them from online dangers. The Government is the Only Source Of Truth’ indoctrination. The Govt want this ‘Govt Only Source Of Truth’ to be the young 16year old voters to be determiners where our country is heading. Those that are taught in school to be good Global Citizens not good New Zealand Citizens, these are NZ’s very own ‘Global Shapers’ that advocate for the WEF, because that’s what they, without realising the dangers of this, or even consciously knowing it, are being manipulated, brainwashed to do.

NZ Government ‘build back better’ the Klaus Schwab’s ‘Global Redesign’ Initiative-UN Agenda 2030 SDGs-169 Targets of rebuilding institutions, education. The Global Governance. The Action Campaign for Education for ALL the Worlds children (June 23rd 2010) . Global Education Monitoring Report 2020- Choice for children and Inclusion.

Instead of lowering the voting age of 16years old shouldn’t the govt be seriously looking at the significant rise in youth crime. EG Two teenagers slitting a drivers throat murdering him in Westhaven whilst horrified people looked on in shock. Big increases in Youth Crime. Yet the stats will tell you Youth Crime has dropped. Scoop NZ reported 20th March 2023 ‘Labours lack of leadership ‘crime rate surge’  More NZrs are victims of crime, police spokesman said (Mark Mitchell). Victimization increased from 2017 – 241,000 to 2022 to over 350,000 victims a 46% increase.

Serious Assaults causing injury sky rocking from 9,800 in 2017 to 23,000 in 2021. 140% increase.  The increasing in ram-raids 886 incidents in 2022, one every 10 hrs. 551% increase since 2018. All Labour has done is decrease the prison population by 30%, repealing the 3 strikes law designed to deter repeat offenders. As the country had his 4th Police Minister in 12 months. And Labour, Greens support the lowering of the voting age. National oppose it at this stage and Act opposes it at National Level BUT would let MPs vote how they want on local government voting. Winston Peters had his say on One News saying the recommended electoral changes are disastrous (6/6/2023). Will lead to instability. Peters said “HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE CRIMINAL COURT LATELY?” Young minds are not fully developed

It’s been reported there is evidence that suggests young brains are still undergoing development well into a persons 20’s, not fully mature until 25yrs, not 18years old as it would apply. Neurological development is not directly proportionate to cognitive maturity, this is very complicated. But what will come next, will it be that old farts can’t vote. But then majority of us have been through massive amount of experiences, knowledge, life skills, and know about how to survive even in times of crisis we are well past hanging onto parents coat tails.   LOL So I suggest us older people have special favoured votes, and we don’t have 16 year olds voting in general elections at all. We’ll call it ‘The Great Reset’ and ‘Back to Normal’ LOL




A POLITICAL SIDE-SHOW: In 1992 the National Government introduced the ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Bill this became legislation in 1993 and operational in 1994. The Act permitting Citizens Initiated referendums (CIR) to be held on questions that are received via petitions that support at least 10% of registered electors in a 12 month period. That CIR’s are non-binding, That citizens of New Zealand can be restricted of their views. Referendums in other words in reality ‘Citizen Initiated Referendums’ are no more than just a ‘political side-show’

DEMOCRACY: Referendums are an important part of New Zealand’s democracy, as they allow the public to have a direct voice on changes to the law, however the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 does NOT give the citizens of New Zealand ‘end decision making rights’ because the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 is ‘Non-binding’, which means the Government is not bound to the decision making of the electoral voting citizens of New Zealand.

THE GENERAL ELECTION:  A Government referendum can be held with a General Election if there is strong debate on a particular issue. Government power to make that decision

TYPES OF REFERENDUMS: There are two types of referendums namely ‘Government initiated and Citizens initiated.

GOVERNMENT INITIATED REFERENDUM: Are promoted by the Government. Can be used to bring legislation into law. Can gauge how the public feel on particular issues. Can be ‘binding’ or ‘non-binding’, this means the government acts, determines the final result, has end decision making rights. The ‘eligible voting electorate (peoples of New Zealand) have NO ‘End Decision Making Rights’ to determine their country’s future.

CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDUMS: Any New Zealand citizens can petition for a referendum, this is namely a ‘citizens initiated’ referendum. 10% of eligible voters must sign the petition to support the referendum. (There were 3.5 million people enrolled to vote in the 2020 election). Citizens Initiated Referendums are ‘Non-binding’, this means the government does NOT have to act on the end result. (Non-binding referendums can be held on any subject)

Just one example of this:- Should the size of the House of Representatives should be reduced from 120 members to 99 members?. Governments end decision making rights were determined ‘we still have 120 members in the House of Representatives’.

HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND REFERENDUMS: The first referendum was in the early 19th and early 20th century, the limiting of drinking alcohol  this held a lot of political sway. Four referendums were held between 1894 and 1908 on liquor licenses however these were not ‘national’ referendums, people could only have their say in the areas they lived in. 1911 was New Zealand’s first nationwide referendum on prohibition of alcohol sales. At the end of the 20th century 2/3rds of the referendums held were about alcohol . . The New Zealand Flag Referendum (2015-2016). 5  designed flags were shortlisted out of 40, this was narrowed down from 10,000 designs submitted by NZrs.

NZ FLAG:  In the 2016 Referendum voters chose to keep the current flag instead of a preferred alternative option. This is called a ‘Consultative’ referendum that is used by the government to gauge public mood on particular topics.

CONSULTATIVE REFERENDUMS: An example of this includes the following:-Hotel bars staying open for longer (1949 and 1967).  Military training should be made compulsory (1949) and -compulsory retirement scheme should be introduced (1997). More recently the 2020 referendums were held beside the 2020 general elections they were the ‘End of Life Choice Act 2019. And  also that of  the ‘recreational cannabis use’.

Government determines legislation.

NUMBER OF SIGNATURES FOR A REFERENDUM TO BE HELD: To support the holding of a referendum you must have 10% of eligible electoral voters nationwide. Again I note that the government is NOT bound by the results concluded by a ‘Citizens Initiated Referendum’

THE CITIZEN’S INITIATED REFERENDUM PROCESS: A person submits a proposal to the Clerk of the House of Representatives asked them to promote a referendum petition. The wording of the proposed petition is determined by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, this can take up to 3 months. The Clerk decides the final wording of the petition and approves the collection of signatures. The petitioner has 12 months to gather enough signatures of 10% of the eligible voting public that support the proposal (petition), this is then delivered to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. Government decides, determines the process of the proposed petition.

PETITION COMPLIANCY: Is determined by the government. If compliant the Speaker of the House presents the petition to the House of Representatives. If NOT compliant, not enough signatures the petition then lapses. However the petition can re-submit the petition and has a further 2 months to gain more signatures. Compliancy determined by the Government.

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL: Sets the date for the referendum, this must be within a month of the petition being presented to the House of Representatives. It must be held within a year of the presentation date unless 75% of MP’s defer it. Government has the power to  determine deferral of a petition

THE OFFICIAL INFORMATIONS ACT 1982. The processes under the ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 are subject to the Official Information’s Act 1982.

REFERENDUM: Is a direct vote by the eligible voting electorate on a proposal, a law, a political issue. This may result in the adoption of a new policy or an amendment of a policy.

CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDA ACT    1991: States the following:-

7.141 Establishes a process allowing persons or organisations to initiate a non-binding national referendum on a subject of their choice, if 10 percent of registered voters sign a petition in support of the proposal of the promotor of the referendum. A referendum is a vote on a question. Referendums usually have a “yes” or “no” answer, but can have more than two possible answers. Referendums can be held with an election, in a stand-alone poll, or by postal vote.

7.142. At times a government response to a petition or referendum will be necessary. Most will be subject to public attention to be politically significant. Any decisions on how, when to respond is made by the government collectively. Individual Ministers should generally refrain from becoming personally involved in a petition (referendum proposal) without cabinet approval

7.143 The government can decide to respond to a referendum proposal at any stage of the referendum process. For example (a) make a declaration of support for the proposed referendum. (b) Indicate the willingness to take into account public debate over the issue at hand. (c) Rejection of the proposal. (d) Make a provision of information to inform the debate of the proposal.

7.144 As a matter of principle, agencies to avoid commenting publicly on the merits of referendum proposals unless they have permission of the Minister to do so.

7.145 It is deemed appropriate for agencies to give the Clerk of the House of Representatives technical assistance in finalising wording of the proposal. Assistance must be restricted to helping ensure that the proposal (petition/referendum) conveys clearly the purpose, effect of the proposal put forward by the promotor. (This can raise sensitive issues as to the changing of the wording of which was originally stated by the promotor of the proposal)

DEMOCRACY: Does NOT exist in New Zealand because the citizens of New Zealand, those with eligible electoral voting rights have NO end decision rights as to the future of New Zealand and how New Zealand Citizens lives are determined by legislation.

POLICIES PROMOTED IN POLITICAL ELECTIONING OF COMPAIGN CANDIDATES : That publicly are NOT delivering policies to amend the ‘Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 from  ‘Non-binding’ to a ‘Binding’ New Zealand Citizens Initiated Binding Act’ (Legislation). Should be questioned as to ‘Why they do not propose in their policy making giving the electoral voting citizens of New Zealand a voice to determine their own future’, the future of their families and generations of New Zealanders to come? INSIST ON A CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER.

MY PERSONAL CONCERNS ARE ‘THE DECRIMILISATION OF ABORTION’ AND THE END OF LIFE CHOICE ACT THAT HAS VERY DANGEROUS CONCEPTS. These were introduced during the COVID19 Pandemic when the people of NZ were experiencing restrictions, lockdowns and compliances never ever experienced before. When the government was supposedly promoting jabs to save lives, they were making plans to take away life. (no-one knows what goes on behind the privacy of another persons life, behind closed doors.. Eg family relations for example neglect.

The lack of funding for Hospice.that supports not only the patient but that of their family too whom are also grieving


Carol Sakey   WEBSITE-.
















67,000 New Zealanders overdue for hospital treatment and specialist appointment. Minster Of Health reported “This will take some time for marked improvements to happen” This is an extremely serious situation that effects peoples health and wellbeing, that will shorten peoples lives if not diagnosed, treated quickly enough.

Andrew Little to the rescue (NOT). May 2022 he announced ‘a high powered taskforce, a national plan of action to clear hospital backlogs. Today’s Sunday Herald reports “hospital backlogs (waiting lists) have deteriorated. Since March 2022 to November 2022  4,131 people have been added to hospital waiting lists (backlogs)  The 2020 Budget $283 million over next three years was to be used to decrease the hospital waiting list. NZ Herald reported 25/3/2022 ‘Cancer Patients wait 3 months for URGENT treatment. Stuff NZ reported 1/2/2022 ‘Dying patients say they are waiting too long for diagnosis, treatments.

Stuff NZ report 13/1/2022 ‘Extraordinarily distressing cancer patients forced to wait months. Cancer patients missing out on precious survival time, suffering from treatable pain, experiencing mental anguish whilst waiting for recommended radiation, oncology treatment. Cancer patients and their families were speaking out about the devastating impact of waiting too long for standard treatments including chemo and radiation therapy. Some waiting 4 months. A Medical Oncologist with Auckland District Health Board reported his concerns – referring to the national monitoring of waiting times for cancer treatment, he said “these are not prioritized by the government”

A  government had introduced a new health system in 2021 which does not include cancer services. Oncologists report that consistent clear reporting on the performance of cancer care is urgently needed, transparency needs to be ensured. Lucy Elwood Cancer Society NZ. Chief Executive said “We are concerned there is no longer ‘at the top of the table measuring targets, specifically looking at how cancer services are performing. Given that cancer is the top cause of death in New Zealand”. Te Aho o Te Kahu, Cancer Control Agency said “they are developing systems to collect share cancer services performance data, but that wont be finished until 2025. In the meantime the hospital backlog (waiting list) continues to increase.

Dr Shaun Costello -Oncologist-College of Radiologists (RANZCR) reported “In some cases a persons cancer has grown so much whilst waiting for treatment that they had to have surgery instead of radiation. He said the “number of Kiwi’s with cancer is expected to double in the next 20years, however the health workforce is projected to shrink. Many Health professionals are leaving New Zealand for better pay and conditions elsewhere. Canterbury Health Board states “shortage of staffing has been known over last 4 yrs. It will take years to clear the backlog, waiting list. “excess deaths are likely”.

As for Oncology services the long waiting times means the prognosis, including chance of survival worsens if treatment is delayed. The longer a person waits, the worse the prognosis, the longer the pain. Obviously this new government health plan involves  Peeni Henare and Andrew Little as key players consequently bear a large part of the responsibility for causing serious health consequences and consequently shortening of peoples life spans. Robbing them of precious time with family, loved ones, friends etc., The govt as a whole must be held accountably, responsible.

Beehive website 21st April 2021– Speeches were given by Andrew Little and Peeni Henare. Announcing the plan Andrew Little’s speech included:- A truly national public health service. Which will take health to the people, in their own homes. To those that need it, no matter where they live. Treating people when they get sick, then they wont need to go to hospital. An emphasis on primary and community healthcare. So the Govt can start giving Te Tino Rangatiratanga and fulfil the governments obligations under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Dept of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Health & Disability Transition Unit had been working together for months on the new health service plan. (A plan for the future). A transformation to help ALL New Zealanders to live longer, healthier lives.

2.Fast Forward to day – a complete failure, a huge increase in the suffering, pain, anxiety on peoples lives . The hospital waiting time(backlog ) almost 67,000 people. But Andrew Little says the new health service is “So the govt can start giving Te Tino Rangatiratanga, fulfilling its obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi.” Saying this is smarter, works more effectively, intelligently, cohesively”

Little referred to the Five System Shifts to ensure a health system that serves ALL New Zealanders (Tell that to the 67,000 people on the hospital waiting list, tell that to the thousands of cancer patients whom you have robbed them of a longer life expectancy and enhancement of life, tell that to their loved ones, families). Little said “This new health transformation will help NZrs live longer, in good health, have the best quality of life. The government will always prioritise this. The new health system will be smarter, work more effectively, intelligently, cohesively.  The ‘Health System Shifts (transformation) will ensure it will serve ALL NZrs. Reinforce Te Tiriti principles, govts obligations to the Treaty. There will be a comprehensive range of support within community settings. All NZrs will have access to high quality emergency, specialist care when they need it.. Digital services will provide more care for people in their own homes. Health workers will be trained for the ‘Future Health System’. A dynamic fundamental shift in ethos and culture for MOH services. To operate as one system. A common leadership. Simplifying, consolidating functions. A unifying purpose to achieve pae-ora ‘A Good Health for ALL’

The new health service system no longer directly fund and commission the health service, instead it will be leaner, sharper, more agile, focused on its core role. Will replace 20 DHBs, will become the first truly national public health service.. Working on the basis of four regional divisions of Health NZ, district offices throughout NZ, will ensure they are truly in touch with the needs of NZrs. Each four regional divisions of Health NZ being responsible, overseeing, managing a network of hospitals, commissioning primary and community healthcare services in their region. A nationwide approach.

Andrew Little added “the system must work in a ‘partnership’ with Maori. The Govt (Crown) has specific obligations to Maori under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Govt now have the opportunity the truly live up to the vision of the Treaty of Waitangi” (NO PARTNERSHIP documented in Treaty Of Waitangi). He added “by monitoring the state of Maori health, hence helps health policies. The Maori Health Authority having the power to commission health services for Maori and to partner with Health NZ in all aspects of the health service system.

Andrew Little said “the establishment of the Maori Health Authority is a real step towards Tino rangatiratanga in health. (Two tier Society). Peeni Henari then concluded with his speech in the House. As he spoke about the improved new health services to protect the health of the population, where Health NZ will work closing with Maori Health Authority. Saying “the government have specific obligations to Maori, the system must listen to the voices of Pacific people including ‘rainbow’ and ‘diverse people. The govt is designing services that work for them There will be a new consumer forum a voice for health service providers.

The health of Pacific people will come under Health NZ not the Maori Health Authority. One of the criticisms is “the new health system does NOT adequately address concerns, needs of the disabled community”. However Henare spoke of digital options and bringing health services closer to home (tele-health-Tele-medicine)

Shifting the focus away from hospitals, virtual diagnosis testing at home, digital monitoring. Iwi/Maori Partnership Boards and locality networks. To tackle the complex needs of an aging population at the time of global health shortages. Henare referred to the ‘Govt planning of the health workforce for the future’. The creation of a new culture, a new  NZ Health Charter, the maintaining of services including the COVID19 vaccination programme. This will be a priority during the transition.  He said “We MUST move forward, DELIBERATELY and with DETERMINATION, and it starts today – the start transition date was 21st April 2021.

3.Henare said “ The new health plan is expected to come into effect July 2022”. The partnership of Health NZ and the Maori Health Authority, which would include a smooth handover to new entities once the law was established. Henare concluding “the New Health Plan, a lifetime change to put in place a new health system, to improve the health of this and future generations’ To make a once-in-a-lifetime change to put in place a new system and to improve the health of this and future generations. A change for tomorrow that will not compromise the care we give today”. Henare  said “He reassure NZrs that the care they rely on will still be available. From your GPs, Local pharmacists, midwives hospital, specialist will still provide the care they did before . He referred to “a greater investment in health, smart, fairer national health system. This transformation is necessary. This time must be different (A New Normal- A small window of opportunity-(New Zealands Great Reset)

Transformation and Investment, achieving pae – ora reshaping NZ health system to be ‘One Truly Fit For Future Generations” As Peeni Henare said “A Transformational Government, big infrastructure build, massive policy commitments leading up to a Single Grand Reveal.. The Maori Health Authority and Health NZ embedding a partnership and this must happen at a local level. Iwi/Maori Partnership Boards. And still they persist although many, many  people of NZ are significantly suffering and needlessly dying.

And today 29th January 2023 .HOSPITAL BACKLOGS CLIMB TO ALMOST 67,000.

67,000 Thousand people in NZ overdue for treatment or specialist appointments. And Ministry Of Health state “this will take some time for marked improvements to take place”.


Cancer patients wait up to 12 weeks for urgent treatment – NZ Herald

See here for full documents about the reforms




FIRSTLY-TO MAKE MY CASE I WILL EXPLAIN WHAT AN ‘OFF LABEL MEDICINE ‘is, later you will find out why I am explaining this ‘An Off Label Medicine is an unapproved drug can be used under certain regulations, legislations.

Under Sect 23 of the Medicine Act 1981 this provides the Minister of Health to grant provisional consent when considered desirable for the medicines to be sold, supplied or used on a restricted basis (LIMITED BASIS) for the treatment of a LIMITED number of patients (People)

June 12th 2015 The National Library Of Medicine published an article ‘Off-Label drug use as a consent and health regulation issue in New Zealand. ‘Off Label’ described as not yet approved or the status of drugs that have been approved

The NZ Medicines Act 1981 specifically allows for off-label drug use, however this authority is limited-Code of Health & Disability Services Consumers Rights Regulations and Common Law state:- It is required that ‘off-label’ drug use is of an acceptable standard, the patient should be fully informed, the patient must give informed consent.

Off Label drug use is an extremely important issue, the current law provides medical practitioner very wide discretionary power without providing classification for what is required of the practitioner in exercising this discretion ’off label’.


The Government had unsuccessfully introduced policy proposals for the Therapeutic Content proposals  back in 2011 and 2016. In 2019 the Therapeutic Product proposal was back on the governments table. “Iwi/Maori natural medicines would be exempted from the Therapeutic Product proposal”

A Med-Safe Report in May 2022 refers to the Medicine Act being replaced with the Therapeutic Products Bill to allow for ‘Off Label’ Medicines Chris Hipkins the COVID19 Response Minister and Andrew Little Minister Of Health where the Director General has the ability to make decisions regarding the administration of the COVID19 jabs, the dose and the frequency as the pandemic developed whilst being outside of the established Medsafe Regulations- medicine process.

A legal base for the provision of the medicines process of any further doses of COVID19 Vaccines (Jabs) including Pfizer’s 4th doses. The 4th dose had not yet been approved by Med-Safe. The government had recommended that Maori and Pacifika peoples over the age of 50 who are immune-compromised can receive the 4th Pfizer dose before winter 2022.  NO public consultation was undertaken as to the governments proposal, however the 4th dose was consistently promoted by mainstream media.

Ministry of Health reported that Pfizer have not yet applied for approval of 4th dose in NZ, that local jurisdictions have to find their own approval strategies.

2.The Ministry of Health reported as to Maori, Pacific peoples health- cannot be overstated as to the impact of COVID19 that there is a time pressure to maximize immunity when winter illnesses are at their peak. (Specific targeting of Maori and Pacific Island peoples for COVID19 jabs -guineapigs) saying “It would be ideal to enable the broader doses of4th Pfizer doses. Opportunities to administer flu and COVID 19 jabs at the same time.

 To provide their populations with 4th doses, but they had to find their own legal route.. However Standing Orders cannot be made for an unconsented medicine (A new medicine), this undermines the purpose and consents process under the 1981 Medicines Act

NOTE: Under the Medicines Act 1981 ‘Off Label’ – number of people receiving doses of ‘unapproved Med-Safe medicines are limited. Pfizer COVID19 dose 4 was unapproved and therefore limited as to how many New Zealanders could receive it.

The government ‘WITH URGENCY’ introduced new arrangements, they  were implemented to amend the Medicine Act introduced 7th June 2022, passed in mid June- recommended by Andrew Little that the Ministry Of Health would be responsible for the implementation of the 4th dose of Pfizer, utilizing all existing delivery settings, processes & technology that has been used previously for the COVID19 rollout.

Ministry Of Health to monitors new data collection. Andrew Little Minister Of Health will administer the application of the Medicines Act 1981 to ensure ‘off-label’ medicines eg COVID19 Pfizer 4th Dose practices.( Ria-moh-amat-may.22.pdf)

In a Court hearing-Judge Rebecca Ellis stated when referring of ‘off label’ medicine, “a limited number of people  specified for in Section 23 Medicines Act 1981. This could NOT be stretched to the whole population over 16years old” Andrew Littles response to Judge Ellis was “I will fix the snag” (Intro to the Therapeutic Product Bill)

RNZ reported 18/5/2021 ‘Technical Anomaly Spurs Urgent Law Change for COVID 19 Vaccine. Government URGENTLY’ seek a change of law to ensure COVID19 Vax rollout is LEGAL following the High Court decision of Judge Rebecca Ellis. Judge Ellis ruled it was ‘reasonably argued, that the governments approval of Pfizer vaccine rollout went beyond the Medicines Act 1981 allowed” . This gave  Andrew Little the right to approve medicines for a limited number of patients. However the COVID 19 Vaccine rollout would cover all New Zealanders over the age of 16years. THUS NOT LIMITED AS IN MEDICINE ACT 1981

Chris Hipkins response to Judge Ellis was “this raises no safety issues, it just highlighted a technical anomaly as to the law. NOTE THE GOVERNMENT WAS TECHNICALLY BREAKING THE LAW. AND THEY NEEDED TO COVER THEIR ARSES.

Andrew Little again responded to Judge Ellis “The government will pass legislation under URGENCY to rectify the problems ( THERAPEUTICS PRODUCTS BILL- This will most definitely be passed to save Governments arses)

Six products are potentially affected by Judge Ellis court decision these include Pfizer Vaccines, 2 Flu Vaccines and 2 types of contraceptives and an electrolyte solution

3.On the 30November 2022 the Therapeutic Product Bill was officially introduced by Andrew Little to the House (Parliament). He describes this in his speech in the Beehive “To modernize the way medicines, medical devices (includes COVID Test Kits) and Natural Health products are regulated. Strict rigorous regulations on natural health products eg. Vit C, Vit D etc., etc., you can buy at the supermarket.

The Therapeutic Product Bill if passed replaces the Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplement Regulation 1985 with one comprehensive  regulatory regime. Andrew Little stated “FIT FOR THE FUTURE’. Enables NZ to take advantages of advances in medicine -gene therapies, AI and machine learning software also vaccines for pandemics. The Therapeutic Product Bill legislation will work alongside, contribute to ‘Pae Ora Health Futures Act’

David Seymour said “Medsafe tended to approve drugs that were approved elsewhere in the world saying “Well, has Medsafe ever declines to approve a drug that the rest of the world is safe”. David Seymour was supporting replacing the Medicine Act 1981 with the Therapeutic Product legislation. He also stated  “the Court were right to uphold the law, however he backs the law change to replace the Medicine Act with the Therapeutic Product Legislation.

As to Judge Rebecca Ellis court outcome David Seymour said “the Court were right to uphold the law, however he backs the law change to replace the Medicine Act with the Therapeutic Product Legislation. National Party COVID19 Minister Chris Bishop said to reporters that National Party support the law change.  .

RNZ Reported 18/5/2021. Technical Anomaly spurs Urgent Law Change. Government urgently seek a change in law to ensure COVID19 Vaccine rollout is LEGAL following a High Court decision. Judge Rebecca Ellis ruled “it was reasonably argued that the government approval of Pfizer Vaccine rollout went beyond the Medicine Act 1981.

NOTE: The Medicine Act 1981 only gave the government the right to approve a limited number of patients, whereas the COVID19 Vaccine Rollout covered everyone in NZ over 16years of age. There are be legal enforcement includes, huge fines, court hearings etc., for those who do not comply to the Therapeutics Legislation (announced Beehive)