I am probably walking on broken glass here with this shared post however never mind I am well used to it now, and I do have my big girl nickers on, so I’ll fire away and wait for the reasponses.

My Research has led me to seeking out information in the October 2019 published documentation of guidance for Policy Makers, Ministers when considering the Treaty Of Waitangi. The Treaty Of Waitangi is one of the major sources of NZ’s Constitution) Te Tiriti o Waitangi is most relevant in New Zealand’s Constitutional Arrangements, therefore the misinterpretations, reinterpretations affect all people of New Zealand.

The Māori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was re-translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu, which was also a Treaty Claimant. The original Māori Version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi has deliberately been corrupted by the Judicial, Legislation and the Waitangi Tribunal. The Waitangi Tribunal has over-reaching powers to re=interpret the Treaty as they so wish and have done so, the same applies to politicians who have re-interpreted the Treaty for decision making as to policies due to the flawed corrupted guidelines in the PM- Cabinets documented guidance.

These guidelines are circulated to *All Chief Executives *All Senior Private Secretaries *All Private Secretaries *All Officials Involved In Policy Development. Below I refer to CO (19)5: Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi Guidance circulated by the Cabinet Office to All Ministers the Issue date was 22nd October 2019. Other major sources include the Constitution Act 1986, the prerogative powers of the Queen, the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993, the Senior Courts Act 2016, the NZ Bill Of Rights 1990 and other relevant New Zealand, English and UK Statutes, relevant decisions of the courts and the conventions of the constitution, Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and also Sir Hugh Kawharu’s translation of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Cabinet Manuel. P2)

Firstly I must add that the original version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi did not create ‘Partnership’ nor ‘Principles’ this was enacted by Statute/legislation and interpretations through the Judicial under the Labour Government in the 1980’s. When the Waitangi Tribunal was established this caused further problems as they have over time been given over-reaching powers, authority to re-interpret the Te Tiriti o Waitangi as they so wish.

Without question or further adieu the Prime Minster’s Cabinet have adopted a biased guidance for ministers to follow by way of using several interpretation that are not clearly compliant or even remotely recognizable to the original Māori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi NZs Founding Document. (Circulated-22/10/2019). The Prime Minister-Cabinet Guidance includes the re-interpretation of what Sir Hugh Kawharu believed to be true that the Chiefs thought in 1840.

There are limits in polity on major decision making. References are made to special rights and interests of Maori and Maori autonomous Institutions having an authority, role to play within the wider constitutional and political system. Refers to two parties negotiating on decision making processes, this eludes to one of a partnership. Also the Treaty creates a basis for protecting and acknowledge Māori Rights and Interests within a shared citizenry. Surely we must now at this given time have one rule, one law for all. I am personally concerned about the ‘them and us’ situation which eludes to a 2 class citizenship in New Zealand.

What do I believe is justifiable as far as the ‘Principles’ of the original version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? My response if that no wording of ‘Principles’ were created in the Te Tiri o Waitangi, this was created by legislation. As for ‘Partnership’, there was no ‘Partnership’ created in the Tiriti o Waitangi. Let us go back to Sir Apirana Ngata, a scholar and a member of Parliament, he was a strong advocate of Maori interests within a unified nation of New Zealand. He described the following “The Chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the ‘Sovereign’ authority to make laws. (Art1) The Treaty transfers all ‘Chiefly’ authority to the Queen forever, and the embodiment of that ‘Authority’ is now the New Zealand Parliament. For that reason, all demands for absolute Maori authorities are nothing more than wishful thinking”.

In 1940 at the Centennial of the Treaty Of Waitangi he said “Let me acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Māori”. Hence from Sir Apirana Ngata’s own words its evidential that legal fiction have evolved deliberately so, because Apirana Ngata’s words clearly shows there is no ‘Partnership’ between the Crown (Govt)

The tail has certainly been wagging the dog, the Waitangi Tribunal should have no political standing, authority over legislation/ regulation or statutes of the law in New Zealand. I believe its highly questionable that the Judicial (Courts) have recognized ‘tikanga’ as part of a Māori Common Law. I am to understand that ‘Tikanga’ Maori means the right way of doing thing in Te Ao Maori. Whatever Māori see as just and correct in their Māori World view that ‘tikanga’. Lawcom.govt.nz defined Tikanga Maori as including all values, standards, principles or norms that Māori subscribe to, to determine appropriate behaviour. Lawcom also state that ‘tikanga’ Māori maybe a source of enforceable rights and interests for Māori.

Lawcom.govt.nz also states that up to 1840 references to Maori Law are ‘tapu’ (sacred prohibition) – ‘rahui’ (a form of tapu restricting access to certain food sources) – ‘utu’ (repayment for anothers actions, whether hostile or friendly and also ‘muru’ (a form of utu, usually a ruitual seizure of personal property as redress, compensation for an offence).

‘Tikanga is expressly recognized in various ways in ACTS of Parliament, therefore this surely means we do have a two class citizenship in New Zealand. I am concerned about the Veto Rights that Iwi/Maori have over others, and where the Waitangi Tribunal sits within this political scope? Here I reference the Waitangi Tribunal in ‘Te Puni Koriki Booklet’ Titled ‘The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Expressed By The Courts and Waitangi Tribunal’

Interesting that ‘Te Puni Kokiri is the governments principal policy advisor on Maori development, Te Puni Koriki is a government department. Described by the government themselves as ‘The Crown-Maori Economic Growth Partnership’ also noted on the Government Website ‘Te Puni Koriki’s Partnership between the Crown (Govt) and Maori is a key principle in the Treaty.

Again I confirm that the original Maori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi never created a Partnership between the Crown- the Govt and Maori.

Sir Hugh Kawharu’s re-interpretations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi are very biased in favour of the over-reaching Waitangi Tribunals authority his re-interpretated beliefs means that every claimant could seek redress (compensation) just for not being able to carry out their chieftainship. Sir Hugh Kauwharu re-interpreted the Treaty in such a way that it could give Iwi/Maori Sovereign Rights, Veto Rights over other, a two class citizenship, veto over the legislature of Parliament.

David Seymour, Winston Peters I urge you to seek open public debate on this extremely important issue that affects all New Zealand Citizens. I pray that Christopher Luxon will walk with you both on broken glass, after a while you get use to it.

The original Maori version of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is well overdue for open discussion and debate. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is New Zealand’s Founding Document that’s very important to NZ’s Constitutional Arrangement.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)  pathway to Universal Health Coverage (WHO) concerns the legal or development status of any or all UN Member Nation States, territories, cities, frontiers or boundaries. Specific products of manufacturers, whether patented or not have been endorsed or recommended by the IPU or WHO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. One of the key ‘health’ targets of Agenda 2030 (UN) SDG’s is Universal Health Coverage promoting health security and equity, social inclusion, reducing inequalities, gender equality, poverty eradication, economic growth and human dignity adopted a resolution calling for parliamentarians to strategically play a substantive role in making Universal Health Care a reality for all.

The era of COVID-19 Pandemic with its severe restrictions has left a multitude of people in populations without or with very limited health coverage, which has seriously deepened  and increased vulnerabilities. UN Agencies published reports document that girls, women are especially affected. This is wrong it is young, elderly and all others including the male species (patriarchal)

The Right to Health (IPU) high level meeting on Universal Health Coverage 2019 (The role of Parliaments in ensuring the ‘right to health’ resolution adopted at the 141^st IPU Assembly. The IPU partnership with the World Health Organization supports parliamentarians without Universal Health Coverage stated Tedross Adhanom Ghebreyesus Director General of WHO  (World Health Org., UN)

The IPU and WHO produced a handbook for Parliamentarians as to National and International commitments, how parliamentarians enact legislation, review and approve budgets and also hold governments to account for non-compliancy

In explain UHC (Universal Health Coverage) this includes exploring contributions that members of parliament make to achieving UHC, focusing on their legislative role which includes developing and drafting, enacting and implementing UHC legislation, as well as their role as to UHC financing, the oversight and accountability. Also a on how  MP recommendations and how they advance UHC in their respective countries.

The Handbook is designed for those involved in enacting legislation in their State, parliaments and parliamentarians, parliamentary staff and advisers, government officials for example executive authorities such as Ministers of Health, member of civil society, communities, academics, constituency staff and any other person that chooses to advocate for or facilitate UHC.

This also included the IPU, WHO and other Multilateral Organizations that work with Parliaments on UHC, as well as other organizations and public interest groups working to accelerate UHC. The Guiding Handbook includes key takeaways and messages, recommendations, information  not all suits the same needs of every country but these ideas, recommendations can be developed or and adapted.

Agenda 2030 itself includes International Human Rights Laws (to leave no-one behind- everyone, everywhere at every age – target 3.8 of Agenda 2030). Hence the consensus achieved of all Nation States in ratifying Agenda 2030 (UN) means they are bound by this pledge to ‘leave no one behind’  The WHO and IPU state that political opportunities must be seized and PPPs must be sought. That is Public-Private Partnerships for Prosperity (Profits for Corporate Multi-stakeholderism otherwise known as ‘Social Investment’) This is to be recognized as a pledge made by all those UN Nation States that ratified UN Agenda 2030 that was adopted at the UN Assembly in 2015. UN & IPU message is to Parliamentarians worldwide “There is no perfect moment to move forward with reform: political opportunities must be seized and partnerships sought with social movements to advance the UHC global agenda to be implemented by parliamentarians in UN Member Nation States” with the absence of discrimination towards certain individuals or groups (never mind the majority of the population this applies to minority revolutionary groups not everyday citizens of New Zealand) , namely gender related and other types of inequalities.

LINK

https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/364855/9789240060388-eng.pdf?sequence=1  54 PAGES

A written question to the Commission ‘European Parliament submitted 13^th April 2023

Deaths that have been caused by COVID Vaccines (Reported by European Parliament)

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) reported that 11 448 people have died in the EU following COVID-19 vaccines[1],

8 368 following Pfizer BioNTech vaccinations (which is 1 345 more deaths in 2022).

1 579 following AstraZeneca vaccinations.

1 161 following Moderna vaccinations.

339 following Janssen vaccinations.

1 following Nuvaxovid vaccinations.

0 following (inactivated, adjuvanted) Valneva vaccinations.

As of 10 April 2023, a total of 50 648 deaths caused by ‘COVID vaccines’ had been reported in EudraVigilance – broken down by disease (heart conditions, central nervous system disorders, etc.). Why then, in the EMA’s latest report of 8 December 2022, is it stated that only 11 448 deaths were flagged and recorded in the EudraVigilance database?

A link was provided Latest figures published by the EMA on 8 December 2022 (situation as of 23.11.2022 https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/covid-19-vaccine-safety-update/covid-19-vaccines-safety-update-8-december-2022_en.pdf)

LINK  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-001201_EN.html

(25 page PDF author Prof Stuart E Madnick Ph.D December 2023). The Continued Threat to Personal Data. Key Factors Behind the 2023 Increase. (December 2023) Over 2.6 billion personal records were breached in 2021 and 2022 (1.1 billion in 2021 and 1.5 billion in 2022).  * The number of data breaches more than tripled between 2013 and 2022.2    * According to a 2023 report, over 80% of data breaches involved data stored in the cloud.   * In the first three quarters of 2023, the number of ransomware attacks increased by almost 70% compared to the first three quarters of 2022.  * 98% of organizations have a relationship with a vendor that experienced a data breach within the last two years  * In the first eight months of 2023 alone, over 360 million people were victims of corporate and institutional data breaches.   * In the first three quarters of 2023, one in four people in the US had their health data exposed in a data breach

RNZ Reported 3^rd June 2021 The number of cyber security incidents reported in New Zealand has risen 25% since this time last year (2020-2021). Government agency CERT NZ’s quarterly report shows there have been 1431 cyber security incidents in the first quarter of this year. The financial loss due to cyber attacks is 7%. Almost a ¼ of the breaches resulted in financial loss totaling $3 Million. Six cases involved in the loss of $100,000 or more. 278 incidents were referred to the police, an increase of 46% compared with the previous quarter

Ministry of Justice chief operating officer Carl Crafar said at this stage, it’s believed the incident affected access to approximately 14,500 coronial files relating to the transportation of deceased people, and approximately 4000 post-mortem reports. Stuff NZ reported 5^th October 2019 ‘Up to 1 million NZ patients data has been breached in a criminal cyber hack. Tu Ora Compass Health CEO Martin Hefforf confirmed this, that medical data could be in criminal hands after cyber attacks dating back years.  Wellington, Kapiti and Wairarapa Primary Health Organization (PHO) Tu Pra Compass Health confirmed anyone enrolled in a medical centre in the region between 2002- 2019 could be affected.

The extent of the patient files that were accessed was impossible to ascertain. PHO’s held individual data such as medical centre enrolment information including names, addressed, ethnicities, ages. It also held data that could be linked to individual patients advised on stopping smoking and alcohol related intake issues. Some information relating to children that were due for their immunizations, also those that were having diabetes checks, flu jabs, women recalled for cervical screening and people due for heart and diabetes checks. Also mental health counselling service information on patients. The current population area covered was about 648,00, but information goes back to 2001- until 2019. Therefore this could be personal information on living and dead people as well.

A newly-released report into last year’s cyber attack of the Waikato District Health Board said Te Whatu Ora needs to “think like a hacker” when building its security softwares. The ransomware attack last May brought the DHB’s hospitals and services to a halt for days, as it tried to restore its IT systems.

RNZ reported 4^th July 2020 ‘Details of active COVID 19 cases leaked in privacy breach. Stating there has been a massive privacy breach, with the leak of personal details revealing the identity of New Zealand’s 18 active Covid cases. RNZ has seen a document that includes the full names, addresses, age and the names of the hotel and one hospital the 18 have been quarantining in. Newshub reported 6/12/2022 Thousands of corona’s files, post mortem reports caught up in ministry of Justice hack. National Cyber Security, Ministry of Health, also police found evidence of cyber hacks going back to 2016. It was said that they will never know if individual patient has been accessed, it is likely they would never know , it was said. It was unclear who was behind the attacks, where they originated from, for what purpose, though one theory was ‘harvesting information for the purpose of identity theft’

Te Whatu Ora reported on their website there had been a cyber security incident affecting an IT service provider that has impacted Access to Te Whatu Ora data relating to bereavement and carias services. I tapped on the link and this text came up.. Sorry we cant find this page you are looking for (No surprises here)