CORPORATE CAPTURE OF GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEMS ‘ THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE WEF AND UN FOOD  AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO)

CORPORATE CAPTURE OF GLOBAL FOOD SYSTEMS ‘ THE COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE WEF AND UN FOOD  AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION (FAO)

The Un / WEF Official Partnership was officially adopted 13th June 2019. With a Proviso to jointly  accelerate UN Agenda 2030 Global Goals across the world. (SDGs) Transforming Our Lives By 2030. Leaving No-one Behind- Everyone-Everywhere at Every Age. To collaborate Global Food Security * Transform Agri-food Systems. Resource Management * Digital Global Innovation * Public-Private Partnerships * Multistakeholder Capitalism

However there have been many critics that have raised multiple concerns primarily Civil Society Organizations about the Conflicts of Interests * The Influence of Private Corporation as whisperers in the ears of UN Agencies .This includes the Corporate Capture of the Global Food System and the UN FAO’s role in the Global Food Initiatives that include:-Strategic Partnerships with Corporations (a wide range of stakeholders) including UN Entities * Governments * Leaders of Civil Society and the Private Sector (The Mask they hide behind is (Eradicating Hunger- Poverty World Wide) Global Agenda 2030- SDG 1 and SDG2

The FAO (UN) works in a broader UN Framework in that of Food Security & Nutrition. Guiding Global, Regional and National efforts into Policy & Decision making. And encourages Multistake-holderism dialogue, developing common approaches to Global Food Systems. Supporting UN Member States to create coalitions of Public-Private Actors to foster Agri-food System Transformation. The deepening of institutional engagement as to Global Challenges such as Climate Change – Health – and the coined phrase ‘Sustainable Development

The WEF-UN Collaboration (Partnership) with the FAO (UN)..In 2022 they signed a Letter of Intent to facilitate the channeling of the Private Sector resources towards Transforming Agri-food Systems worldwide. The WEF launched the Food Innovation Hubs Global Initiative with FAO (UN) as the Collaborator. Leveraging Market Based Partnerships with Public-Private and Civil Society Partners to Scale Up Innovations

Critics have reported that the UNs growing collaboration with the WEF is a platform for Transnational Corporations that allows ‘Global Corporate Capture’ and a dialogue of  Global Decision Making. 240 Civil Society Organizations condemned the 2019 WEF-UN Partnership in an Open Letter stating that it ‘Delegitimizes the UN and weakens the role of UN Member States in Global Decision Making – Increasing the influence of corporations, promoting industrial, technological focused solution to Food Security which risks harming small scale farming practices, causing socio-economical problems. Favoring Corporate Interests over that of vulnerable populations-Threatening Human Rights.

Giving disproportionate power to Corporate Interests, undermining  the Democratic State Nature of the UN as it was originally set out to be. With the WEF & UN public-private relationship increasing investment in Agrifood systems, aborting traditional farming. Collaborating on Data & Digital conditions that produce WEF/UN Initiatives Eg: (One Map & the Future Market Place Playbook) With the FAO (UN) and WEF Co-publishing a White Paper titled ‘Transforming Food Systems for Country Led Innovation’

The WEF/FAO (UN) Food Summit and the Digital and Data Coalition. The WEF long standing relations with UN Agencies. The Alignment of Food Systems Transformation.  Inclusive Partnerships with common goals. The common goal of Transforming Global Food Systems. Providing Data and Stats crucial for informing Policy and Tracking Progress in the Transformation of Global Food Systems

Partnerships that are focused on attracting Investment for the Transformation of Global Food Systems, this includes how Food is Produced, Distributed and Consumed globally. The total destruction of the Free-market Enterprise Innovated Economy (The Freedom To Choose). Multistakeholder Capitalism Klaus Schwabs baby (600 Page Global Redesign Initiative 2010) Produced and adopted post the 2008-2009 World  Financial Recession. Adopted by Governments worldwide

Critics state that this approach shifts Economic Governance away from Competitive Markets towards a model of Self Appointed Group of Corporate and Political Elites. There are also many critics that view the annual DAVOS gatherings as an Undemocratic Opaque Governance Venue where powerful political and corporate leaders make decisions without accountability to the public they represent in UN Member Nation States thus diminishing National Sovereignty

Never let a Good Crisis Go To Waste. Large Corporate Interests that prioritize Conformity over Disruption. The WEF is accused of ‘Crony Capitalism’. Where Corporations use their influence to lobby for favorable regulations and protectionism through Legislations at the expense of a genuine Free-Market enterprising Innovative Economy. Corporations accused of Green Washing (ESG’s)

Initiatives such as the Great Reset proposed by the WEF, advocating for the restructuring of the Global Economy. The lack of Democratic Engagement within UN Member Nation States and Beyond -Globally that do not reflect the interests of UN Member State or Global Population interests but those of the Economical /Political Elite. The Stakeholder Capitalism model seeks to shift responsibility beyond shareholders to a broader group of stakeholders has been criticized as rebranding of the worlds economy. And the Erosion of National Sovereignty

The increasing influence of the WEF over UN Nation State policies and the erosion of National Sovereignty is not without serious concern. The WEF pushing for Global Governance Models that by-pass Nation State Legislatures without civil societies explicit consent. The WEF Global Digital Identification Systems, * Centralized Climate Policies * International Tax Frameworks all encroachments on Nation State Government and the voting public of the Sovereign Nation State. Decision making that cannot be challenged, hence the government is not held accountable by its voting  citizens

The WEF a strong powerful proponent of the Forth Industrial Revolution which encompasses Artificial Intelligence * Automation * Biotechnology being implemented even though populations worldwide have serious concerns about this push into a Technocratic Future of Controlling Forces of Compliancy. The WEF reporting its Vision ‘A Technology Driven Future that includes Mass Digital Surveillance which is being played out rapidly across the world eight now. AI Digital Identification Global Governance (Transforming Our Live by 2030. UN Agenda 2030 SDG 16.9 Everyone is to have a digital ID by 2030) Otherwise you wont be recognized as existing.

NZ participating in the WEF Pilot ‘Digital Regulations’. Without transparency. Did the Government share this information publicly? NO. Was there any public discussion- debate with  the population of NZ. No.  WEF mass digital surveillance, monitoring and a push for a ‘cashless society’. Digital Identity Systems. Government/Corporate surveillance restricting individual autonomy- freedoms- liberties. (Judith Collins Portfolio)

COVID 19 – The WEF played an increasing significant role in shaping Global Health Policies particularly during the COVID Pandemic. Collaborating with Organizations like the WHO (UN) and major Pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma) to influence  Vax Policies, Digital Health Passes and Pandemic Preparedness Strategies. Concerns have been raised about the WEFs role in promoting policies that benefit Bif Pharma at the expense of transparency and Public Choice. The rapid push for vaccine mandates and Digital Health Passports seen by some as an over-reach prioritizing Corporate Interests over Individual Freedoms

The WEF and the UN have positioned themselves as a global force, with zilch accountability to National Sovereignty and the people whom vote political parties in. This empowers a small global powerful elite to shape the Global Future that do not align with the broader interests of Humanity. This is a global concentration of centralized power (Top Down and Bottom Up) that poses a huge risk to our personal- individual freedoms. Where Governments engage with the WEF /UN behind closed doors when they collaboration – plan to implement the Transforming Of Our Lives before 2030. (Leaving No-One Behind..Everyone..Everywhere.. At Every Age)

We No… What They Are Doing.. They Know- We know what they are Doing.. But they still keep on Doing it.. Yet there is a deafening Silence in the public Arena as the UN Member State Puppets implement ‘Transforming Our Lives By 2030’ Locking us into a Digital Prison. Industrial Corporate Global Food Systems and Smart City Surveillance-Monitoring-Facial Recognition.

WakeUpNZ.. RESEARCHER: Cassie

 

 

...

Uncategorized Blog Posts View all Categories

Carol Sakey
Uncategorized

PARLIAMENT LEGIZLATED THE TE TIRITI o WAITANGI. ‘The Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create Partnerships nor Principles’

Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the Principles of the Treaty. First tie the Principles of the Treaty had been documented) There are NO Principles in the Treaty Of Waitangi 1840.

1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act. While the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act was about the settlement of historical grievances, the 1985 Amendment Act was a very different matter. The recognition of iwi-Māori rather than pan-Māori as the inheritors of Treaty settlements established the reviving tribe as both political player and economic corporation.

1985 Amendment Act, Deputy Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer agreed to Sir Hepi Te Heuheu’s request to insert the clause “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” into Section 9 of the State-owned Enterprises Act 1986. This is the first reference in legislation or policy to the principles of the Treaty – indeed, the first indication that the Treaty has principles. Parliament did not define the principles — an unconscionable failure which opened the way for the courts and government officials to determine what is probably one of the most important political events of the 20th century. Treaty principles, including that of partnership, now appear in almost all legislation.

1987 Court of Appeal decision stating that the Treaty established a relationship “akin to a partnership”. Although the judges likened it to the obligation partners in a partnership had they did not say that the Treaty actually created a partnership. Nor did it. However, “partnership” was quickly picked up by the Waitangi Tribunal and by the 1987 Iwi Leaders’ Forum. From that time this powerful interest group has achieved enormous success in claiming constitutional change and ownership rights. “Partnership” is the justification. The possibility that the He Puapua Report will be implemented either in full or modified form demonstrates the group’s success to date.

VALUABLE LINKS:

https://www.nzcpr.com/the-road-to-he-puapua-is-there-really-a-treaty-partnership/

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/m%C3%A2ori-party%E2%80%99s-head-clouds-over-non-binding-un-declaration Horomia speech

https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/assets/Publications/Ecosystem-services-in-New-Zealand/2_3_Christie.pdf

. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2013-07/ltfs-13-bg-nrs.pdf  37 pages pdf

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2017-12/Natural%20Resources.pdf

https://www.tearawhiti.govt.nz/assets/Tools-and-Resources/Providing-for-the-Treaty-of-Waitangi-in-legislation.pdf

 

...
Carol Sakey
Uncategorized

‘INDIGENOUS’ A SIMPLE ONE IDENTIFYING ONE FOR ALL NATIVE PEOPLES

UNITED NATIONS: Who are Indigenous peoples? An official definition of ‘Indigenous’ has NOT been adopted by any United Nations System Body. The UN System has developed a modern understanding of this term. According to the UN the most fruitful approach is to identify, rather than define indigenous peoples. This is based on the fundamental criterion of self-identification as underlined in a number of human rights

INTERNATIONAL LAW (Cornel Law School):  SELF-DETERMINATION-

Self Determination is the Legal Right of ‘ALL PEOPLE’ to decide their own destiny, it is a core principle of International Law, recognized as a general principle of law that is enshrined in a number of International Treaties. Self-determination is protected in ‘The United Nations Charter’ – ‘International Covenant on Civil and political Rights- and the UN Declaration of Human Rights – As a Right of ‘ALL PEOPLES’

THE DEFINITION OF ‘INDIGENOUS’: The term ‘indigenous ‘derives from the late Latin ‘indigenus’ and ‘indigena’ (native) and from the Old Latin ‘indu’ that is derived from the archaic ‘endo’ (a cognate of the Greek ‘endo’), meaning ‘in, within’ and the Latin ‘gignere’ meaning ‘to beget’, from the root ‘gene’ meaning ‘to produce, give birth, beget.

DEFINITIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF INDIGENOUS: ‘BEGET’: To cause it to happen. Especially a male parent as to procreate or generate an offspring.(Collins Dictionary) To generate something usually children. Another example is ‘good’ work begets ‘good work’. Beget in the Bible means (esp. of a male) to become the father of (offspring); procreate :In the Bible, Isaac begat Jacob. to cause; produce as an effect.

‘NATIVE’: a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.. One born or reared in a particular place (Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Cambridge). being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being ·. belonging to a person by birth or to a thing by nature (Collins Dictionary)

‘SELF -DETERMINATION’  * Is the determination by oneself or itself, without outside influence. freedom to live as one chooses, or to act or decide without consulting another or others.      *Believing you can control your own destiny   * A combination of attitudes, abilities that lead people to set goals for themselves and to take initiatives to reach those goals.     * The ability or power to make decisions for yourself. The Principles of Self-determination is the freedom to decide how one wants to live their life

‘CULTURAL’ Is a  way of life for an entire society this includes:-  *Codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, art and traditions. There seven traits which are  *Learned *Transmitted   * Based on symbols  *Changeable  *Integrated  * Ethnocentric  *Adaptive  *Cultural Values are a cultures core beliefs about what’s good or right. We all have cultural values, preferences these are informed by the cultures we most associate ourselves with. Defining ‘culture’ is very difficult because among other things it can be an uncountable noun ‘culture’, or an countable one.  A culture/different cultures involves too many layers of meaning. There are five key cultural characteristics that are shared in human societies. These are that culture is *learned    *shared    *symbolic    * integrated and dynamic.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CULTURE: The Characteristics of culture is not thought to be innate or inherited. All cultures have characteristics such as limitations, traditions, history, principles, values, symbols and boundaries. A Culture of Dignity is where everyone has the opportunity thrive. The culture of dignity is what it means to be human, valued, respected it’s a hallmark of shared humanity. Where each individual unique person is defined as part of the human race. Not collectively judged, treated as in a ‘group mentality’; To act in accordance with the ‘truth’. A Healthy Culture: Is one in which people feel safe to speak out publicly when they do or do not agree with what others are implying, saying. Culture is dynamic, adapts to changes of circumstance. Everyone has a culture, whilst we are born into culture, it is also something we also learn

SOCIETY AND CULTURE: Society cannot exist without culture since culture is an accumulation of norms, behaviours, practices that determines how society functions in daily life. These include family, educational, religious and political  Cultural plays a major role in the lives of everyone in society. Cultural Inheritance: Is referred to as the storage and transmission of information by communication, imitation, teaching and learning. It is transmitted by the brain rather than by the genes, however it does have a genetic basis, the genes involved determining the structure of the brain

CULTURE UNIQUENESS: Even though we are in the same culture, we are still unique individuals with our own unique characteristics. Even though people in a certain culture are all different, there are still larger patterns in their behavior’s.

CULTURE AND IDENTITY: Culture is an important part of ALL people as an individual unique within a group or as in an induvial unique person in their own right. This is shaped by values, attitudes, beliefs, values and even experiences in life. Examples of my own Culture – English Mother and Irish Father:- The Irish culture is rich, diverse, full of myths, literature, music, dance, art cuisine, language. Has been influenced by the English, Tudor, Scots, Normans and Vikings. St Paddy’s day is celebrated all around the world.  Well known for our Guinness  and leprechauns  Irish Coddle, a stew with potatoes and other veg including bacon and sausages. Nothing reflects the warmth and homegrown comfort like a good old hearty Irish stew.. As for a good Irish breakfast that would be a ‘traditional full Irish breakfast comprising of bacon, sausages, eggs, potatoes, beans and home made soda bread. Not forgetting the mushrooms and tomatoes also the white and black pudding. Black pudding is the pigs blood in sausage form. White pudding is simply a pork sausage. Mind you pigs trotters were always on the menu when I visited my Nan and Grandad in Ireland.

For many Irish Religion and Family cohesion are basic to traditional Irish family culture. They cherish  family history and heritage. Knowing your extended family and your cousins is a vital part of Irish peoples lives. Romantic Irish.. Chivalry isn’t dead. It’s said that the Irish are very romantic. We think it comes from the close knit bond they all share with their families, mammies and daddies. Irish boys are taught to be chivalrous and Irish women are rated as one of the most loving partners in the world.

English Culture:  Rich customs and traditions that are famous right across the world. Lots of tea drinking (Dipping biscuits in tea). Hallmarks of the English culture have gathered historically over time. Football and Cricket. Yorkshire puds and roast beef dinners. British values and beliefs. The mix of British culture is very rich and diverse and is sometimes called ‘cultural capital’. The valuing of communities, villages and townships. Local markets and the pub just down the road. A visit to the chippie on a Friday night. British national identity is referred to as the sense of national identity as embodies in the shared characteristic culture, languages, traditions of the British people. English cooked breakfast on Sundays, sausage bacon and eggs with fried bread or toast. And a trip down to the local pub before Sunday lunch, meet up with your friends and family. Kids in the family room or beer garden at the pub with their bags of chippies and lemonade. Grandad playing the piano and his dog howling a tune

Proud to have English/Irish blood running through my veins. New Zealand is the place I call my home having lived here  for 60 years. Having personally worked passionately within community agencies in NZ and  amongst people of many cultures, ethnicities always recognizing the individual uniqueness of each individual person not one the same.  I personally believe each of us in our own unique individuality, in peace and love have this opportunity to come together as One Nation for  One People. God Save New Zealand

 

 

 

 

 

...
Carol Sakey
Uncategorized

NZ GOVERNMENT’S PERSPECTIVE OF KIWI’S IDENTITY

https://teara.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-identity/print

New Zealand identity by Fiona Barker

A scenic paradise inhabited by friendly Māori; a far-flung land where rugged bushmen hunt deer in the backblocks; the social laboratory of the world, trialling innovative policies; a courageous small nation standing up to the US over nuclear-ship visits – these are all strands that have contributed to New Zealand’s multiple national identities over time.  Understanding New Zealand national identity: National identity is a form of social identity – meaning people’s understanding of who they are in relation to others. National identity is a shared understanding of the characteristics and behaviours that distinguish one nation from other nations.

Multiple Identities: National identity is not fixed and has multiple strands- Different people and groups view the nation in different ways. A Southland farmer may describe New Zealand identity differently from a Pacific person in South Auckland – National identity may change depending on the situation. Many people notice that being a New Zealander means something different to them when they travel overseas. – Internal national identity may be different from external identity. An external identity is how a nation state presents itself to other peoples and countries. A strong external identity helps a country to have a strong diplomatic presence internationally and to advance national economic interests. Major export-oriented industries, such as education and tourism, rely for their success on a positive external image or ‘national brand’. – National identities evolve over time. New Zealand identity has changed due to the shifting relationship with Britain, changing relationships among Māori, Pākehā and newer New Zealanders, and the interaction of New Zealand with other countries and cultures.

Expressions of identity: National identity is expressed in many different ways. In New Zealand’s case these include:- deliberate promotion of images by the state through symbols like flags or coins, immigration propaganda or tourist advertising, or through displays such as international exhibitions – the performance of New Zealanders internationally in war or in sport – major political acts that attract international attention, such as when New Zealand banned visits by nuclear-powered and -armed ships – artistic portrayals, in films, books, art or music.

The Overseas view of New Zealand’s identity: The external image of New Zealand may be quite different from the way locals see it. In 2004 a contributor to a web page of ideas about New Zealand wrote: ‘I close my eyes and just imagine what “New Zealand” will be like, and I get the best vibes, the cool ocean wind relaxing my senses, the blue skies making me fly, the lovely grass caressing me like a newborn and the people treating me like one of their own. All this when I haven’t even seen New Zealand, what happens when I actually do?’

Māori identity Before the European settlement of New Zealand, Māori tribes did not share an overarching national identity. The 1835 Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand by the Confederation of United Tribes, and the 1834 choice of an ensign that became known as the United Tribes’ flag, introduced symbols of a shared identity. However, this did not mean that there was a single national indigenous political authority and shared identity. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 by chiefs of iwi from around the country suggests that the British Crown made a treaty with the leaders of many nations, not a single nation with a unified identity.

Colonialism and New Zealand identity After New Zealand became a colony of the United Kingdom, largely peopled by British settlers, the relationship with ‘Home’ (Britain) was a central focus of identity. The extent of loyalty to Britain varied over time – but at least from the late 19th century until the 1950s New Zealand’s identity was contained within an imperial identity. New Zealanders saw their country as playing a special role as a loyal member of the British Empire, and for a long time New Zealand aspired to be a ‘Britain of the South’. Until the 1960s few New Zealanders yearned for an identity independent of the empire. Since then there has been a stronger sense of a separate identity, located firmly in the South Pacific.

Contested identity:  Social struggles from the 1960s onwards showed that, as in every nation, New Zealanders had diverse understandings of their country and its identity. This contrasted with the memory of united suffering and identity from the first and second world wars. Debate about New Zealand involvement in the Vietnam War, the anti-nuclear movement, and the 1981 Springbok rugby tour provoked conflict among New Zealanders as to the nature of their country. Debate also existed about whether New Zealand was a bicultural or multicultural nation, and whether it should see itself as part of Asia, as a Pacific nation, or as still closely linked to the United Kingdom.

LAND: The Land has always been central to New Zealanders’ identity. Māori believed that Papatūānuku, the earth mother, was the origin of all life. People were born from the land and returned to the land. The word for land (whenua) was also the word for placenta. Tribes typically assert their identity in relation to their mountains and rivers.

Pioneering the land: British navigator James Cook’s three voyages of exploration established a view of New Zealand as a fertile place which could become a site of prosperous European-style agriculture. Sydney Parkinson, the artist on Cook’s first voyage, believed that the East Coast ‘with proper cultivation, might be rendered a kind of second Paradise’1. Such images were reinforced by 19th-century immigration propaganda designed to attract landless rural labourers to the new country. They were promised a land with a benign climate and productive soil for growing crops.

Southern Eden In 1954 Patrick O’Donovan of the English Observer, who was in New Zealand for the royal tour of Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, wrote that New Zealand was ‘like one of those fat and promised lands that restless men have always believed to lie on the other side of the hills. It is green and seamed with ranks of trees.’2 The Queen herself was told that ‘a waste of fern, bush and swamp’ had become ‘the rich, productive area it is today’.3 From the early 20th century this rural ideal was strengthened by the idea that men and women who worked on New Zealand farms had strength and do-it-yourself ingenuity, in contrast to the decadent and physically inept populations in older countries. The hard work of the New Zealand pioneers was valued for having turned bush into productive farm land. Even in the early 2000s – although 85% of New Zealanders lived in urban areas – many still thought of themselves as part of a largely rural or agricultural nation.

Pure New Zealand: While some early European visitors to New Zealand thought that its natural scenery had romantic features, for a long time Pākehā saw the bush as monotonous and frightening. However, at the end of the 19th century New Zealand sought to attract foreign tourists. The Department of Tourist and Health Resorts was established in 1901 and promoted a view of New Zealand as ‘the most wonderful Scenic paradise in the World – unequalled Fjords, Awe-Inspiring Geysers’.4 The areas of the southern lakes and the ‘hot lakes’ around Rotorua were especially praised. During the 20th century New Zealand’s golden beaches became symbols of natural beauty, and as areas of indigenous forest became smaller there was a movement to preserve the bush as essential to New Zealand’s distinctiveness. ‘The most beautiful country in the world’ became part of New Zealand’s self-image. The campaign to save Lake Manapōuri from being raised for hydroelectric power production in the early 1970s was a significant moment in the evolution of this view.

In the early 2000s New Zealand’s wild landscapes were promoted through calendars, glossy picture books and travel advertising. Tourism New Zealand featured a ‘100% Pure’ campaign which suggested a world of unpolluted lakes and rivers and pristine forests. Environmental campaigners frequently pointed out that the country’s record in areas such as water and air pollution was not as ‘clean and green’ as many New Zealanders liked to believe.                              

 The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and the replacement Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011, legislating as a consequence of Māori claims to the foreshore and seabed, provoked political debate. In part, this was because the legislation touched the strong and often emotional connection that New Zealanders, Māori and Pākehā, had with the land, beaches and the ocean

Footnotes
  1. Sydney Parkinson, journal, 23 October 1769. http://southseas.nla.gov.au/journals/parkinson/134.html(last accessed 1 November 2011). Back
  2. Evening Post, 4 February 1954.Back
  3. A tour of New Zealand by Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, 1953–1954. Wellington: Secretary for Internal Affairs, 1953.Back
  4. Quoted in Lydia Wevers, Country of writing: travel writing and New Zealand, 1809–1900. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 2002, p. 182.Back

War and sport: National identity is often shaped by remembered success and failure in war. This is certainly true of New Zealand’s 20th-century wars. But the battles between British and Māori during the 19th century were less often commemorated as founding moments of New Zealand. While Māori remembered them, Pākehā preferred to forget. This makes New Zealand different from societies like the United States, where the Civil War of 1861–5 is central to national identity and memory.

South African War The first occasion when New Zealanders gained national pride and international attention in war was in the South African War (1899–1902). The 10 contingents of New Zealand soldiers (6,500 men) established a reputation as brave soldiers who were adaptable, full of initiative and natural leaders.

First World War: The deaths of over 18,000 and the service of over 100,000 soldiers in the First World War (1914–18) became a key feature of New Zealand’s national memory and identity. Foreign observers gave them international recognition, and in meeting soldiers from other countries Kiwis judged themselves against others.

International praise: New Zealanders like to quote, and requote, the praise showered on their soldiers at Gallipoli. King George V said the New Zealand troops had ‘proved themselves worthy sons of Empire’; Sir Ian Hamilton, the British commander, said they had ‘upheld the finest traditions of our race’; poet John Masefield described them as ‘the flower of the world’s manhood’.1While fewer died at Gallipoli than on the Western Front, the landing at Gallipoli in Turkey on 25 April 1915 became especially commemorated as the first significant occasion when New Zealanders displayed their courage to the world. In 1920 that day became a public holiday, Anzac Day; it has been a national day of commemoration ever since. Although New Zealanders seek to distinguish themselves from Australians in many ways, the close relationship forged in the First World War between New Zealand and Australia, and commemorated through the ‘ANZAC spirit’, has remained important to how New Zealanders understand their history.

Second World War  The experience of New Zealand soldiers fighting in Greece, Crete, North Africa and Italy during the Second World War reinforced New Zealand men’s sense of themselves as tough, adaptable and egalitarian. The service of New Zealand women abroad as nurses or at home as factory workers or housewives established their reputation as dependable and able to ‘make do’.

Sport: International sport was another area where New Zealanders demonstrated their identity to themselves and the world. The success of All Black rugby teams since 1905 and netball teams since the 1970s established an image of New Zealanders as good at working in teams and with a physical strength which was thought to have derived from a rural background. Rowing successes reinforced this image.Individual sporting successes such as Jack Lovelock at the 1936 Olympics, Yvette Williams at the 1952 Olympics, Peter Snell at the 1960 Rome and 1964 Tokyo Olympics and John Walker at Montreal in 1976 were also noteworthy, and like Edmund Hillary’s success in climbing Everest in 1953, presented New Zealanders as people who had strength and stamina, yet were modest and down-to-earth. From the 1990s, New Zealand’s yachting successes in the America’s Cup evoked the image of a people who combined physical abilities with cutting-edge technological innovation. Footnotes:- Quoted in Jock Phillips, A man’s country?: the image of the pakeha male, a history. Auckland: Penguin, 1987, p. 165. Back

Politics:

Social laboratory of the world– During the 1890s the innovations of the Liberal government attracted international interest and established an image of New Zealand as a place that pioneered political experiments. These innovations included: giving women the vote in 1893, the first country in the world to do so- the 1894 introduction of a system of compulsory arbitration in industrial relations – legislation in the early 1890s to break up the large landed estates and establish more egalitarian smallholdings – the introduction of old-age pensions in 1898.

Foreign observers: Reports from visitors to New Zealand helped promote the idea that New Zealand had a distinctive political tradition. American journalist Henry Demarest Lloyd described New Zealand as the country without strikes; French socialist André Metin defined its philosophy as socialism without doctrine; and French geographer and economist André Siegfried agreed that New Zealanders had a contempt for theory. Later governments built on this reputation for experimentation and novelty in such initiatives as the welfare-state measures of the 1930s, the introduction of a government accident compensation scheme in the 1970s, the introduction of a radical policy of open government in 1982 and the free-market policies of the 1980s and early 1990s.

An independent status: The movement from a British identity towards a New Zealand identity was also expressed in political change. New Zealand did not experience a sudden moment of independence. After its transition from British colony to dominion status in 1907, New Zealand’s relationship with the United Kingdom weakened over time. The 1931 Statute of Westminster of the British Parliament, which removed its right to legislate for New Zealand, was ratified by New Zealand only in 1947. Some institutions took longer to establish in New Zealand. New Zealand’s Supreme Court replaced the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final court of appeal only in 2003. The country’s place as a member of the Commonwealth still shaped it in the 2000s.

Citizenship: Changes in citizenship policy affected the way New Zealanders understood their national identity. In 1948 New Zealand citizenship was created. However, the Citizenship Act 1977 was the first time that all links between British and New Zealand citizenship ceased. New Zealanders had previously been subjects of the British Empire, but the Citizenship Act 1977 made their citizenship – imprinted in the New Zealand passport – simply that of New Zealander.

Trade: The process of moving away from Britain also occurred in New Zealand’s foreign and economic policy. In 1973 the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community (EEC). New Zealand lost its privileged access to the British market, and began searching for new markets throughout the world. Active, government-led protest against French nuclear testing in the South Pacific showed that New Zealand foreign policy increasingly focused on the Pacific. Prime Minister Jim Bolger suggested in the early 1990s that New Zealand should think of itself as part of Asia.

Moral example: The idea of serving as a moral example to the world has been an important element of New Zealand national identity. The anti-apartheid movement in the 1970s and 1980s, protests against French nuclear testing at Moruroa atoll in the 1970s, and popular support for the New Zealand government’s anti-nuclear position in the 1980s were manifestations of this. In 1985 a United States naval ship, the USS Buchanan, was denied entry to New Zealand and Prime Minister David Lange gave a famous anti-nuclear speech at the Oxford Union debate in the UK. In 1987 Parliament passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act, banning visits by nuclear-armed or -powered vessels. Many New Zealanders saw these as the courageous actions of a small nation staking out a clear position on the world stage.

Political ideals: Ever since Prime Minister Peter Fraser’s strong stand at the 1945 San Francisco conference which established the United Nations, New Zealand has consistently promoted human rights and multilateral action through international institutions like the United Nations. New Zealanders have held to other ideals as central to the nation’s political culture. Although not all agree, some claim that New Zealanders believe egalitarianism, a ‘fair go’, easy access to politicians and ideological pragmatism are important features of New Zealand’s political culture.

New Zealand’s peoples: Fierce Māori – At least until the 1850s the identity of New Zealand to European observers was strongly affected by the fact that the majority of the people were Māori. Early contact established an image of Māori as fierce fighters and cannibals, and New Zealand gained a reputation in the early 19th century as a dangerous place.

Romantic Māori: The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 established an ideal that Māori and Pākehā were ‘one people’, and there was an official policy of assimilating Māori into European culture. Gradually New Zealand came to promote itself as a model of race relations. Following the New Zealand wars and the pacification of Māori resistance, and with the Māori population dropping to under 50,000 in the 1890s, some Pākehā began to romanticise Māori. They turned to Māori culture as a source of a distinct New Zealand identity and promoted New Zealand as ‘Maoriland’. Māori designs entered New Zealand life and the All Blacks adopted the Māori haka.

One or two? The idea that Māori and Pākehā were one people became widespread by the early 20th century. Kate Sheppard, the women’s suffrage leader, wrote in 1901, ‘Maori and Pakeha have become one people, under one Sovereign and one Parliament, glorying alike in the one title of “New Zealander”’.1 However, this belief rarely accorded with reality. As historian Michael King has written, New Zealand society was marked by ‘at least two cultures and two heritages, very often looking in two different directions’.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         20th-century conflicts: During the first half of the 20th century Pākehā believed that New Zealand was living a ‘golden age’ of harmonious co-existence among ethnic groups and that the country had ‘the best race relations in the world’. From the 1960s activism by Māori grew in protest at their political, social and economic circumstances. The 1975 march to Parliament to protest grievances over land loss and Ngāti Whātua’s 1977–78 occupation of Bastion Point (Takaparawhā) in Auckland were examples of protests that advocated a stronger recognition of Māori identity in national life. This Māori renaissance encouraged a strengthening of Māori cultural expressions in art, language and tikanga (customs). The Māori language was promoted through the kōhanga reo (language-learning nest) movement and Māori-language media from the 1980s. When the national anthem was sung solely in Māori prior to an All Blacks’ game in the 1999 Rugby World Cup in England, vigorous public debate ensued. Two important symbols of national identity – sport and language – came into conflict. New Zealanders disagreed over whether bilingualism was central to the national identity. Despite this, by the 1990s most government agencies had adopted both Māori and English official names and signage and the Māori language was increasingly part of New Zealand life. Māori ritual was increasingly used to welcome foreign guests, and Māori motifs such as the koru (unfolding fern frond) were widely adopted. Outside New Zealand, Māori culture and indigenous practice became prominent in the country’s external national image. This was partly because, as Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen said in 2006, Māori were ‘the New Zealanders who, by definition, make us different from any other nation’.3 An early example of such external promotion was the Te Māori exhibition of Māori arts and artefacts, which toured internationally from 1984 to 1986. Partly in response to Māori protest, from the 1980s onwards New Zealand governments adopted a policy of biculturalism. This implied a partnership between Māori and the Crown, whereby the government ensured that services were appropriate to both cultures. Some people criticised this approach for identifying a particular ethnic group as distinctive. There was tension between those believing in ‘one nation’, and those who thought that multiple identity groups co-existed within an overarching New Zealand identity.

Immigration, multiculturalism and diversity: From the mid-1980s New Zealand society became increasingly multicultural. Following the Immigration Act 1986, which removed rules that gave preference to certain countries of origin, immigrants arrived from many countries. Whereas in 1986 12.4% of New Zealand’s population identified themselves as Māori, 3.7% as Pacific and just 1.5% as Asian, by 2006 14.6% were Māori, 6.9% Pacific and 9.2% Asian. 21.8% of New Zealand residents were born overseas. These changes brought vibrancy and visible diversity to New Zealand’s cities. The multicultural society meant there were many ways of being a New Zealander. For instance, the Pacific presence in the national identity became stronger in arts, music and sport. One challenge for New Zealanders was to reconcile a multicultural society with the policy of biculturalism. New Zealanders have traditionally seen themselves as tolerant and open, and New Zealanders score highly in international surveys on measures of social liberalism. In 2002 Prime Minister Helen Clark stated that the government saw New Zealand as ‘a land where diversity is valued and reflected in our national identity’.4 Almost all New Zealand political leaders supported this view.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Footnotes:

National Council of Women conference report, 1901, pp. 13–14. Back

Michael King, The Penguin history of New Zealand. Auckland: Penguin, 2003, p. 167. Back

Quoted in P. Skilling, ‘National identity in a diverse society.’ In New Zealand government and politics, edited by Raymond Miller. 5th ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 62. Back                                                                                                                                                                                     Quoted in ‘National identity in a diverse society,’ p. 61.                                                                                                                                                                                Culture and arts: Art, literature, music and film unofficially reflect many important aspects of a national identity. The arts confirm a sense of identity for locals and help establish the character of New Zealand for people overseas. In particular, they show us how the geographical and cultural anchors of New Zealand identity have changed over time.

Colonial culture: Much 19th-century literature is known for its romantic accounts of rural life in New Zealand. It often embodied the pioneer mythology. Some of the poetry and novels at the end of the 19th century romanticised Māori – as did paintings such as those by Charles Goldie.

Expatriation: In the early 20th century some significant writers and artists saw New Zealand as a desolate cultural landscape. A number, such as the writer Katherine Mansfield and the painter Frances Hodgkins, expatriated themselves. Most novelists published their books in London for a British readership, although they often used colonial settings.                                                                                                                               Cultural nationalism: From the mid-1930s a cultural nationalist movement sought to establish a thriving local culture and break with British traditions. The men alone in the rugged bush and mountains, or the moment of European discovery of New Zealand, were favourite themes. They were expressed in John Mulgan’s novel Man alone, Denis Glover’s poems about Arawata Bill, Allen Curnow’s verse and composer Douglas Lilburn’s ‘Landfall in unknown seas’. Painters such as Rita Angus, Colin McCahon and Toss Woollaston also focused on the distinctive landscapes of New Zealand. At a popular level, writers such as Barry Crump elevated the hard life of the backblocks deer culler into a national icon.

New ‘home’: The poet Denis Glover, who helped establish a local publishing outlet, Caxton Press, showed in his 1936 poem ‘Home thoughts’ how ‘home’ had moved for many New Zealanders: I do not dream of Sussex downs or quaint old England’s quaint old towns—I think of what may yet be seen in Johnsonville or Geraldine.1

Film and television: From the 1960s New Zealand television reflected New Zealanders to themselves. Expressive of the rural mythology, Country calendar became New Zealand’s longest-running programme, and John Clarke established a large following for his comic persona Fred Dagg, a gumboot-wearing farmer. Local film-makers took time to become established. Some, such as Jane Campion, left New Zealand to build their career abroad. Not until the 1990s, with the more rapid growth of the local film industry around Peter Jackson’s film productions, was it common for film-makers to make their career in New Zealand. Jackson’s films, particularly The lord of the rings trilogy, became hugely important in presenting images of the New Zealand landscape to the world. Māori filmmakers such as Taika Waititi also presented Māori culture and identity on the big screen. The work of Weta Digital – creating digital and special effects for movies – conveyed an image of New Zealanders as technically sophisticated.

Diversity: Contemporary New Zealand literature, film, theatre and music is enriched by the diversity in New Zealand’s population. Composer Gareth Farr incorporates European, Māori and Pacific strands into his classical compositions, while musicians such as Che Fu, King Kapisi and Ladi6 present a strongly Pacific-flavoured New Zealand identity to the global hip-hop scene. New Zealand reggae – infused particularly with a Māori and Pacific flavour – is also represented internationally by groups such as TrinityRoots and Fat Freddy’s Drop.

Modern expatriation Although cultural life flourishes in New Zealand, expatriation remained a major phenomenon among New Zealanders in the 2000s. Over 16% of New Zealand citizens, and almost 25% of tertiary-educated New Zealanders, were estimated to live abroad. The largest group of overseas New Zealanders lived in Australia. In 2001 the Kiwi Expat Association (KEA) was founded to connect New Zealanders overseas to the nation, to enhance business opportunities and to promote New Zealand around the world. Their activities are a reminder that the nation also includes New Zealanders not currently resident in the country.

The ‘OE’ (overseas experience), whereby young New Zealanders travel and work abroad, was seen as an important rite of passage. This circulation of New Zealanders in and out of the country had become part of the national identity. It shaped how New Zealand and New Zealanders interacted with, and related to, the wider world.

Footnotes: Denis Glover, ‘Home thoughts.’ In The Penguin book of New Zealand verse, edited by Ian Wedde and Harvey McQueen. Auckland: Penguin, 1985, p. 211. Back

Symbols of identity; National identity is also reproduced on a daily basis through national symbols and everyday items. These range from official symbols such as stamps, flags, coins or coats of arms through to trademarks or the popular icons commonly known as ‘kiwiana’.

Stars, land and sea: New Zealand’s location in the southern hemisphere was symbolised by the Southern Cross constellation in both the United Tribes’ Flag (the first national flag, adopted in 1834) and the New Zealand Ensign (the national flag since 1902). The Southern Cross was also used on the tomb of the unknown warrior, established in 2004 at the national war memorial in Wellington.

New Zealand’s distance across the seas from Britain was symbolised in the waves and sailing ships found in early crests. In the 19th century the Southern Alps featured in early tourism books and were represented in the 1898 stamp issue, one of the first pictorial stamp sets in the world. In the 20th century the beach became a more important national symbol, expressed in late-20th-century Christmas cards of flowering pōhutukawa trees and the kiwiana symbol of jandals. The national identity of New Zealanders as pioneering farmers was expressed in the use of sheep as a symbol of New Zealand. Sheep also appeared in coats of arms. More recently gumboots, no. 8 fencing wire (symbolising the alleged innovative ‘can-do’ attitude of New Zealanders) and the Swanndri bush shirt have been kiwiana cultural icons originating in farming.

Native flora and fauna: Indigenous plants and animals quickly became symbols of New Zealand. The Māori koru design, which was eventually adopted by Pākehā, depicted an unfurling fern frond. In the 19th century ferns were represented in books and in cabinet-making, and New Zealand became known as ‘fernland’. The fern was used to mark the graves of New Zealand soldiers and appeared on stamps and coins. Native birds were also quickly adopted as symbols. In the colonial period the moa was a pre-eminent symbol of the country – but from the early 20th century the kiwi was the dominant symbol. During the First World War New Zealand soldiers became known as ‘Kiwis’. This soon spread to become the common name for all New Zealanders and an adjective applied to all things New Zealand. Even the country’s currency became known as the kiwi. In 2011 the dollar coin featured a kiwi and ferns. In 1990 the symbol for the sesquicentennial of the Treaty of Waitangi was a white heron (kōtuku).

War and sport: New Zealand’s achievements in war were symbolised by the distinctive lemon-squeezer hats worn by its soldiers, and in the hundreds of war memorials placed at crossroads in the 1920s and the memorial halls built after the Second World War. The success of the All Blacks rugby team made the silver fern on a black background into a widely used symbol of the country. Some even promoted it as the design for a possible new national flag. Edmund Hillary’s triumph in climbing Mt Everest led to his portrait being used on the $5 note from 1990.

Politics: New Zealand’s early status as a colony of Great Britain gave the Union Jack a continuing place on the national flag. At the beginning of the 20th century the figure of Zealandia, daughter of Britannia, briefly became a symbol for the adolescent nation. In 2011 the Queen as head of state remained on the coins, the $20 banknote and many stamp issues. New Zealand’s reforming history found expression in the portrait of Kate Sheppard, pioneering suffragist, on the $10 banknote.

Māori: Māori designs were used quite often on 19th-century publications, especially tourist books. They also became common on trademarks and stamps. The $50 banknote featured early-20th-century Ngāti Porou politician Apirana Ngata. A piece of pounamu (greenstone), often carved, became a common item of dress distinguishing Kiwis overseas in the late 20th century, and designs with koru elements were important in the branding of many public agencies.

In sum, the different ways in which New Zealand identity has been expressed over time have been given symbolic form in the everyday imagery of New Zealand life.

External links and sources

More suggestions and sources

Barker, F. ‘Political culture: patterns and issues.’ In New Zealand government and politics, edited by Raymond Miller. 5th ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2010: 13–28.

Belich, James. Paradise reforged: a history of the New Zealanders from the 1880s to the year 2000. Auckland: Allen Lane; Penguin, 2001.

Bell, Claudia. Inventing New Zealand: everyday myths of Pakeha identity. Auckland: Penguin, 1996.

Byrnes, Giselle, ed. The new Oxford history of New Zealand. South Melbourne; Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Liu, James H., and others, eds. New Zealand identities: departures and destinations. Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2005.

Skilling, P. ‘National identity in a diverse society.’ In New Zealand government and politics, edited by Raymond Miller. 5th ed. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 2010: 54-65.

How to cite this page: Fiona Barker, ‘New Zealand identity’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/new-zealand-identity/print (accessed 28 March 2023) Story by Fiona Barker, published 20 Jun 2012

The idea that Māori and Pākehā were one people became widespread by the early 20th century. Kate Sheppard, the women’s suffrage leader, wrote in 1901, ‘Maori and Pakeha have become one people, under one Sovereign and one Parliament, glorying alike in the one title of “New Zealander”’.1 However, this belief rarely accorded with reality. As historian Michael King has written, New Zealand society was marked by ‘at least two cultures and two heritages, very often looking in two different directions’.2

Foreign observers: Reports from visitors to New Zealand helped promote the idea that New Zealand had a distinctive political tradition. American journalist Henry Demarest Lloyd described New Zealand as the country without strikes; French socialist André Metin defined its philosophy as socialism without doctrine; and French geographer and economist André Siegfried agreed that New Zealanders had a contempt for theory. 

International praise New Zealanders like to quote, and requote, the praise showered on their soldiers at Gallipoli. King George V said the New Zealand troops had ‘proved themselves worthy sons of Empire’; Sir Ian Hamilton, the British commander, said they had ‘upheld the finest traditions of our race’; poet John Masefield described them as ‘the flower of the world’s manhood’.1

 

 

...

SOFT LAW – HARD LAW – DISABLING THE SOVEREIGN STATE ‘THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE ‘

Soft Law is non-binding, is used as a gap filler between non-binding UN- International Agreements. Hence it has some form of political legality, it appears legal but is not necessarily lawful. Be prepared for the ‘hard knocks’ of soft law. Lawful matters are ethically enjoined in the law of the land, the law of the people our actual nature.

The term ‘Soft Law’ is used to denote non-binding agreements, principles, declarations that are predominantly found in the International sphere such as UN Assembly resolutions. It was dubbed by a Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee as a ‘grey-letter law’, has no legally binding force.

Soft Law is intended to influence conduct. The impact of ‘Soft Law’ plays a role in facilitating, mobilizing the consent of UN Member States that are required to establish binding international agreements. Soft Law is the non binding gap filler until UN Agreements are introduced into domestic policy.

Soft Law can be persuasive, have hard consequences, civil liberties and human rights become limited. September 2001 the UN and various global, regional selective institutions created a specific ‘Soft Law Eco-System’ that limits human rights. Soft Law has does not undergo serious human rights scrutiny

In ‘Soft Law’ there is nothing about specific impingement on human rights. Obligations of UN Member States to International UN Agreements can result in particularly harmful weak norms that can lead to serious human rights violations that undermines security for all.

Human Rights and Security are fundamentally entwined and co-dependent. Security without Human Rights protections is an illusion. Soft Law is developed in the form of resolutions, guidelines, technical manuals, opinions from informal or inaccessible institutions.

Lacks the meaningful process of public assessment by human rights experts. Is implemented in the absence of ‘Hard Law’ (Legislation.) ‘Soft Law can serve as the sole reference point for years, despite the lack of human rights input.

For example: NZ Government agreement of UN Agenda Non-Binding- entered into parliament as a Soft Law. For 5 years remained a ‘Soft Law’ until 2020 when Ardern entered it into domestic policy. Then became Hard Law (Legislation). Legally Binding.

Hence an ‘Osmosis’ takes place. Soft Law enters ‘Hard Law’ Legislation. There is a spiders web of ‘Soft Law’ norms within counter-terrorism standards in counter-terrorism institutions as to inconsistent human rights. Soft Law policies formulated without meaningful assessment of human rights impact

2011 Global Counter Terrorism Forum was an action orientated platform to combat vulnerability to terrorism which issued practises and recommendations on the implementation of counter-terrorism policies. Access limited for human rights entities and civil society

1989 Financial Action Task Force was founded, considered as the global standard, a setter of policies, combatting money laundering and terrorism financing. Recommendations were not legally binding but UN Member States strive towards compliance due to the benefits linked to membership. Its mandate contains no references to International Human Rights.

Common Law has been deliberately ignored- Firstly Do No Harm. The Common Good of All People. ‘Soft Law’ needs no political consensus, its accepted in parliament once the govt agrees to a non-binding international (UN) Agreement

25/09/2015.UN General Assembly unanimously adopted UN Agenda 2030 ‘Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda to transform every aspect of peoples lives worldwide. Re-engineering of peoples behaviour, of society, infrastructure, economy, land use etc., in favour of WEF Stakeholder Corporate Capture.

Fitting hand in glove with Klaus Schwab’s WEF ‘Global Redesign Initiative’ otherwise known as the ‘4th Industrial Revolution or the Great Reset’. The Decade of Action’, 2020 -2030 the deliberate destruction of the ‘free market’ economy, to replace it with ‘Multi-stakeholder’ Corporate Capture. This being the transforming out our we once knew it. The ‘New Normal’. WHO (UN) stating “We must never go back to the old normal”

NZ Govt signed UN Agenda 2030 in September 2015, it then entered parliament under ‘Soft Law’ until 5 years later, in 2020 Ardern entered UN Agenda 2030 into domestic policy hence it then became ‘Hard Law’ Legally Binding. (Legislation)

UN Agenda 2030 Global development goals are to be implanted globally, worldwide. Universally applicable to all countries, highlights challenges, the requirement for transformation of human behaviour from an old normal to a new normal. These are substantial behaviour changes, detrimental to living standards of all peoples, leaving no-one behind, everyone, everywhere at every age.

Each SDG addresses a specific range of issues, governmental goals, specifically detailed targets, within specific timeframes (2030, sometimes 2025). Supported by indicators which at regional and national level are to be developed by UN Member States. At the global level are established by a global indicator framework, that’s reviewed annually, has a comprehensive review every 5 years

The monitoring, revision of the SDGs, targets, indicators are entrusted to the ‘High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development’ under the auspices of the UN Economic & Social Council. The aim to monitor human behaviour, the goal to transform- re-engineer all aspects of human behaviour. A massive one world strategy, firstly a nudge then a push, full compliancy requires a shove.

This One World Governance global strategy is exceptionally authoritarian, immoral theoretical tyranny. All UN Member States have agreed to implement this strategy on populations worldwide. Involves Central and Local Govts, parliaments, civil society, international and national institutions, NGO’s, Businesses-Corporations, Academia and Indigenous Communities

Religious Leaders including the Pope is fully involved whom wants the whole world to embrace UN Agenda 2030 as a moral duty to mother earth (Gaia). This is nothing short of cultism. Pope collaborating with Rothschilds, chaplain of the UN.

Its massively obsessively ambitious, enormously destructive. Deliberately promotes the plundering of sovereign nation states. The telling of the big lie is ‘Self Determination’. They determine your life, you do not that’s the end goal.

Its crazy insanity, courts around the world have already granted legal standing, constitution’s to grant legal personhood to rivers, non human parts of nature and to the earth itself. (Worship of Gaia -Mother Earth) Not God the creator.

13th June 2019 WEF and UN entered an official strategic partnership agreement to accelerate UN Agenda 2030. A global corporate capture. The agreement grants transnational corporations preferential access to the UN System at the expense of UN Member Nations populations.  Includes NZ Sovereign people.

This UN -WEF partnership has been condemned by many, is seen as delegitimizing the UN, weakening the role of UN Member States in autonomous decision making. It formalises a very dangerous corporate capture of the UN System. A UN -WEF One World Corporate Governance. The UN-UN Member States are ineffective at holding corporations to account

Drives the world dangerously towards a privatised non-democratic global governance, corporate influence in the UN has been well known for years.

The Sovereign people of NZ did not vote for this global, nor was this publicly debated hence the Sovereign people of NZ have deliberately have been run rough shot over. A Government that namely a corporation planning the future of your life and that of your children’s, and future generations.

The stakeholder corporate public-private framework is pre-determines, pre-planned. The boiling frog. The frog is about to boil. Ouch will it hurt.. Yes, could it kill you. Yes. Will it kill your freedoms Yes. Unless we stand up to the political cronies in the toilet bowl of Wellington.  Stakeholder Capitalism has failed in the past, but then it was not implemented in such a global vast way.

Stakeholder Corporate Economy– the goal is destroy Free market enterprise-economy. Small businesses, farming communities. Without the Global Pandemic, the lockdowns, the plundering of the economies this leftist Socialist Marxist global entity would never have such massive power as it has now

Multi-stakeholder Corporate economy. Everything is at stake. Your freedom, human rights are at stake.(Non-democratic).  Free- market economy is about supply and demand. Businesses are innovated, consumers choose what they want to buy. Have the freedom to come up with new ideas, freedom of expression and democratic rights.

Jacinda Ardern is the poster child for UN Agenda 2030. The UN blueprint for Socialism reported the ‘Star News’ 16/11/2020 by Muriel  Newman NZ Centre for Political Research’

4.Refers to the Bill & Melinda Gates hosting of a Global Shapers event in New York. Ardern being guest speaker. Ardern boasts to the audience that under her admin she had taken the lead embedding UN Agenda 2030 into our regulatory framework, domestic policy making. Saying “NZ Govt is doing something no other countries have tried, incorporated the principles of Agenda 2030 into domestic policy making, to drive system level actions, an approach needed on a global scale”

Melinda Gates gave Ardern high praise as she told the audience that Jacinda Ardern had released an international human rights plan that NZ promises to take the lead on, among gender equality, women and girls empowerment. Melinda Gates described “Ardern as a true international leader that understands that the future of the world depends on eliminating inequality”

The non-binding ‘Soft Law’ was introduced by the National led Govt and the Labour led government introduced it into ‘Hard Law’ Legislation (team work)

John Key in 2015 praised the adoption of UN Agenda 2030 particularly he said ‘SDG 1 End all forms of poverty on this earth by 2030. The World Ban reported 2nd May 2022. The new extreme poverty line of $2.15 per persay per person

COVID19. (Child poverty Ardern’s Portfolio)

Auckland Scoop News. Food and Financial Hardship in NZ. Reported today. Fruit and Veges increased by 23%. The lack of choice many people are experiencing when purchasing food. The effects of food security. 27/2/2023.

62% of families run out of food every week, 5.6% experience inadequate nutrition every day. 66% Experience stress about their inability to afford food weekly for their families. 35% feel constantly stressed about their inability to afford food (Press release by Vision West) West Auckland Community Trust. Wealthy corporations keep the poor in poverty. Unless you create the life you want then there is a great risk you will be eventually forced to deal with a life you do not want.

Chris Trotter article 12th February 2023. Referring to Three Waters calling it a mastermind of misdirection. Tribal corporation already halfway into the deracinated world of global capitalism, well hidden from their own people behind swirling veils of Māori mysticism.

Any politician willing to front this power grab by the Iwi Elite Corporations is bound to become a lightening rod for all manner of racially charged criticism and abuse.  Deliberately silencing, censoring freedom of speech all part of stakeholder corporate capitalism. Your freedom is seriously at stake.

Part and parcel of the UN-WEF multi-stakeholder partnership of UN Agenda 2030. Transforming our world SDG 6. ‘Water’ UN Agenda 2030, received great praise in Parliament in 2015. The ‘Soft Law’ gap filler. Arderns ‘Hard Law’ -Hard to swallow. Whatever Hipkins or any other MP says. UN Agenda 2030 ‘Water SDG6 like all the other SDGs are all part of the Governments legislations. Don’t be fooled its not going away.

5.LINKS

SOFT LAW – HARD LAW – DISABLING THE SOVEREIGN STATE ‘THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE ‘

 

Chris Trotter: The privatisation two-step – is Three Waters a masterpiece of misdirection? – Point of Order (wordpress.com)

Auckland.Scoop » Food And Financial Hardship In Aotearoa New Zealand – PART TWO – The Effects Of Food Insecurity


Goal 1 Ending all forms of poverty everywhere. Impossibibility.

https://www.un.org › sustainabledevelopment › povertyEradicating extreme poverty for all people everywhere by 2

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/gender-equality-and-2030-agenda-sustainable-development

https://www.intersentiaonline.com/publication/the-private-side-of-transforming-our-world-un-sustainable-development-goals-2030-and-the-role-of-p/2

https://www.fian.org/en/press-release/article/wef-takeover-of-un-strongly-condemned-2273

https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-opinion/nzs-path-united-nations-agenda-2030

Auckland.Scoop » Food And Financial Hardship In Aotearoa New Zealand – PART TWO – The Effects Of Food Insecurity

https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/the-role-of-soft-law-in-global-governance-heading-towards-hegemonic-influence/

https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/the-role-of-soft-law-in-global-governance-heading-towards-hegemonic-influence/

 

 

 

...