THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources in New Zealand.

1.2 Many New Zealanders are taking action to conserve the environment. Throughout New Zealand, iwi, hapū, and community groups are working to monitor, protect, and enhance the health of their environment.

1.3 Some natural resources are “co-governed” – the work to restore or conserve them is led as a result of negotiated decision-making arrangements between iwi and/or other groups, central government, and/or local government. Many of these arrangements have come about after long negotiations, including Treaty of Waitangi settlements. The arrangements have many legal forms and include statutory bodies, trusts, and other relationships.

1.4We looked at a selection of these arrangements to identify what works well and what does not. We wanted to identify factors that need to be considered when setting up and maintaining effective co-governance arrangements.

What we looked at

1.5 We looked at eight examples of co-governance and how co-governance is being used for environmental projects (see Figure 1). The examples are:- Waikato River Authority;- Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (Auckland); – Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement (Lake Ellesmere, Canterbury); – Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group; – Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao (Tauranga); – Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust (Waikato);- Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Reserves Board; and Parakai Recreation Reserve Board.

Locations of the co-governance examples we looked at

1.6 All the examples involved iwi and local authorities. Some also included community groups. Some arose out of Treaty of Waitangi claims settlements. Others were voluntary, including one that was later formalised through a Treaty settlement.

1.7 We reviewed participants’ experiences and perceptions and used that information to identify what helps to set up and operate co-governance arrangements successfully.

1.8 Although our main interest was in co-governance, we looked at examples that were sometimes a mixture of co-governance and co-management. We identified principles that apply generally to both co-governance and co-management.

1.9 In resource management work, the terms “co-governance” and “co-management” are both used to describe negotiated arrangements between iwi, central government, local government, and/or local groups to achieve effective management of an environmental or conservation resource.

1.10 These terms are sometimes used interchangeably because their definitions are not well understood. Governance focuses on strategic matters, while management is concerned with day-to-day operational responsibilities. When used correctly, the terms can describe the extent of decision-making powers (see Figure 2).
Comparing co-management and co-governance

CO- MANAGEMENT: The collaborative process of decision-making and problem solving within the administration of conservation policy

CO-GOVERNANCE: Arrangements in which ultimate decision-making authority resides with a collaborative body exercising devolved power, this is where power and responsibility are shared between government and local stakeholders

1.11 Where natural resources are managed as part of or after a Treaty settlement, co-governance often means that there are equal numbers of iwi representatives and council members involved. Usually (an exception is the Waikato River Authority), councils retain final decision-making powers over the management of natural resources. This is in keeping with councils’ responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002.

1.12 In the examples we looked at, some were about governance and others more about management. In some, people’s roles included elements of both governance and management.

1.13 The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 set up the Waikato River Authority as a co-governance entity. The Waikato River Authority sets the direction for managing the Waikato River in its “Vision and Strategy” document. This document is considered to be part of the Waikato Regional Policy Statement. It is binding on all national, regional, and district policy and decisions for the management of the river.

1.14 The Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority is also a co-governance entity. Auckland Council is responsible for managing the Maunga, under the direction of the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority.

1.15 The Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group is charged with providing leadership in putting into effect its vision and strategy for the Rotorua lakes and their catchments. As the governance group, it provides the direction, vision, and strategic oversight for the lakes programme. The strategy group needs to approve any decisions about funding under the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Programme.

1.16 Local authorities usually control the creation, membership, and disestablishment of joint committees. However, when they are part of Treaty redress, the creation and membership of these committees are agreed between councils and iwi and provided for in Treaty legislation. This is the case for the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group. The Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Act 2006 provides for the establishment of a permanent joint committee that can be disestablished only with the agreement of all parties. This means that the Te Arawa Lakes Trust is an equal member with the regional and district councils.

1.17 As we have mentioned, some of the examples we looked at contained elements of co-governance and co-management. The parties to the Te Waihora Co-Governance Agreement told us that their arrangement was “one step away from true co-governance”. However, the partners were clear that they wanted an arrangement that allowed for some form of co-governance:

Ngāi Tahu own the lake bed via the treaty settlement, which must mean something. It’s at the least a very powerful symbol, but not just symbolic. [You] can’t dismiss their view, even though they have no [Resource Management Act] powers.

1.18 Importantly, in this instance, the parties are clear about their limits but also clear about where they want to get to: “[It’s] not quite co-governance … The arrangement starts at co-management, with the mechanism to move to co-governance.” The parties’ agreement confirmed their commitment to “strive toward appropriate vesting of decision-making powers in the Parties as co-governors over the Te Waihora catchment”.

1.19 The members of Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao are clear that they are co-managers. The Mauao Trust, as the owners of the historic reserve, are the governors.

1.20 In the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust’s case, the Trust has a co-governance structure, where the board is co-chaired by a mana whenua representative and a 3).landowner representative. The Trust members maintain that the co-governance regime ensures that tikanga Māori is incorporated in governance and day-to-day management decisions.

1.21 Responsibility for managing the scenic reserve rests with Waipa District Council. The Council has a working relationship with the Trust to deliver the desired outcomes. For the land within the fenced perimeter but outside the reserve, it is intended that the Trust will manage the land as though part of the scenic reserve. Landowner covenants would cover this management arrangement.

1.24 Because each co-governance arrangement was different, we had lines of questioning to guide our conversations. Basing our questions on our expectations of good governance and leadership, we focused on:-clarity of purpose; roles and responsibilities; capability; accountability and integrity; information and reporting; and financial sustainability.

Structure of this report

1.25- In Part 2, we discuss the importance of effective relationships when setting up and putting into effect co-governance arrangements.

1.26 In Part 3, we discuss how parties need to build and maintain a shared understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

1.27 In Part 4, we discuss how parties need to put in place the processes and understandings about how they will work together to achieve their purpose.

1.28 In Part 5, we discuss how important it is to involve people with the right experience and capacity in setting up and putting into effect co-governance arrangements.

1.29 In Part 6, we discuss how parties need to plan for accountability reporting and financial sustainability.

1.30 Appendices 1-6 provide background information about six of the co-governance examples.

INTERESTING LINKS:-

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/summary.pdf  Summary of our report Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources – Controller-Auditor General  2 pages pdf Principles for effectively co-governing natural resources February 2016  68 page pdf

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/co-governance-amended.pdf (Co-Governance Amended Report)  The Purpose of this Report:–

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/docs/summary.pdf

https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/part1.htm (This report)

Reference Source: Dodson, G. (2014), “Co-Governance and Local Empowerment? Conservation Partnership Frameworks and Marine Protection at Mimiwhangata, New Zealand” in Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal (2014) Volume 7, Issue 25, available at www.tandfonline.com.

https://store.thomsonreuters.co.nz/waking-the-taniwha-maori-governance-in-the-21st-century-ebk/productdetail/126608 Thomsonrueters.co.nz

https://www.boardroompractice.co.nz/files/96/file/NZ-govt-owned-companies-pdf 21 pages PDF

...

The Guardian reported 4^th April 2023 Jacinda Ardern to tackle online extremism in new role as ‘Special Envoy’ for Christchurch Call. Working alongside international governments and social media companies to target content online. Prime minister Chris Hipkins announced on Tuesday evening that he had appointed Ardern as special envoy for the Christchurch Call, a newly created position. Her relationships with leaders and technology companies and her drive for change will help increase the pace and ambition of the work we are doing,” he said. he Christchurch Call project calls on signatory nations to adopt and enforce laws that ban objectionable material, and set guidelines on how traditional media can report acts of terrorism without amplifying them. Ardern said “since stepping down as Prime Minister she believed that her resignation could lower the temperature in NZ Political discourse after deep division emerged around vaccinations, the country’s COVID response. It did occur to me that my departure might just take a bit of heat out,” Ardern said in one of two Tuesday night television appearances. “If it did, that would be good for New Zealand,” she said. “I knew I was a flashpoint for some people, and again [while] that wasn’t the basis of my decision, I hoped it would be a consequence of my decision.

Ardern also announced she would be joining the board of trustees of Prince William’s Earthshot Prize, which awards five £1m prizes each year for work providing solutions to major environmental problems. Ardern said she “believed Earthshot’s power to encourage and spread not only the innovation we desperately need, but also optimism”. Prince William said that Ardern would “bring a rich infusion of new thinking to our mission”. Prince William and The Royal Foundation created the Earthshot Prize, a global research project for innovative solutions to environmental challenges that supposedly face the planet

Who is on the Earthshot Team .Prince William. Founder and President.* Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah.* Cate Blanchett.* Sir David Attenborough. *Ernest Gibson.* Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim. *Indra Nooyi. * Jack Ma.and Jacinda Ardern. The Earthshot Prize is supported by our Global Alliance, an unprecedented network of organisations worldwide. group of leading global organisations and philanthropists which act as strategic funding partners. The Earthshot Prize coincided on 21^st Sept 2022 with New York Climate Week described as a ‘summit in partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies with a line up of speaker State and business leaders, philanthropists and activist addressing the subject of climate doom and gloom. Hosted by Michael Bloomberg. Jacinda Ardern, Bill Gates, Christina Figueres  as speakers.  And David Attenburgh World Wild Life Friend funded by the UN.

Ardern’s newly created special position will “represent New Zealand’s continued commitment to push for greater protection online from terrorist and violent extremist content,” the prime minister’s office said in a statement. Ardern will report directly to the prime minister, and will work closely with France as co-leaders. She will begin her duties later this month, on 17 April. She will not accept remuneration for the role. Currently, a person who had held the office of Prime Minister for not less than two years – whether continuously or in total – can receive $11,400 for each complete year they served in the office up to a maximum of $57,000 per year until they die. Their spouse or partner is also paid an annuity at half that yearly rate.

As Politico News reports 4^th April 2023 Jacinda Ardern is back and she has been appointed by Chris Hipkins PM as ‘Special Envoy’ for the Christchurch Call. backed by countries including the United States and Canada; tech giants such as Google and Meta are participants. Macron welcomed Ardern’s appointment. “My dear Jacinda Ardern, I am pleased that you will continue to work alongside us as Special Envoy for the Christchurch Call as we fight terrorist and violent extremist content online. Jacinda Ardern may not be physically sitting the  House.. No the elephant still in the room has not left… Hipkins just appointed her a new special role, as she continues her journey  as special Envoy a self described ‘The Only Source Of Truth’.

Arderns promise to ‘Build Back Better’ to reshape New Zealand. Greater need for Big Bold Transformations. It will be conveniently comfortable to get around. In 2030 the govt chose to invest its multi billion dollar infrastructure fund in cycleways bike paths, public transport. Oops 1,000 cancellation of bus services this week or is it again next week or was it last week. But its happened and happening. But she said don’t worry the buses and trains run on time and they are frequent. Take the kids to school on your bike. Its cheaper to buy an electric car. Oh by the way if the country runs out of fuel, then the governor general will be confiscating yours under International Law. Never mind we have 8 days of fuel left. Don’t worry be happy. You’ll be happy when you own nothing. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/04/jacinda-ardern-to-tackle-online-extremism-in-new-role-as-special-envoy-for-christchurch-call

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np0mPt18lS0 2022 Earthshot Prize New York

...

Byron C Clark’s recently authored book titled FEAR ‘The NZ Hostile Underworld of Extremists’. Content includes names we probably all know -Groundswell- Howl of The Protest-Brice Mckenzie, The Agriculture Action Group, Vinny Eastwood, Lee Williams, Brian and Hannah Tamaki, Counterspin, Voices For Freedom, Carol Sakey other individuals and Freedoms Groups. All labeled as New Zealand’s hostile underworld extremists’. And that’s not the end of it, he also gives seminars at Massey University on Misinformation, Disinformation referring to ‘Alt-right’ in NZ society. Clark’s seminars focus on university students and staff. Clark has been a writer for Fightback (Socialist Marxist publication, Overland and David Farriers Webworm. He describes his activism as forms of video with humorous  and educational content’. The Massey University seminar theme ‘Who-why and where to from now?’ Clarks seminars are organized by Roger McEwan of Massey University.

Byron Clark’s Massey University ‘CARE ACTIVIST IN RESIDENT’ Anti-Racism Intervention with Byron Clark, 18th-22nd October 2021 covering Digital Hate in Aotearoa’, livestreaming countering online Hate and Misinformation., holding workshops, social media platforms, utilizing institutions and discussion on radicalization and de-radicalization. RNZ interview Byron Clark 4/2/2023 a discussion on Clark’s book ‘FEAR’. Clark said he had been criticized as being Far Left, he said “he does no reject the label”. Hence self – admittance he is ‘Far Left”. Stuff News article ‘Alt-right and conspiracy has grown out of the shadows (15/5/2022) again refers to Roger McEwan Massey Senior lecturer. Roger McEwan interviews Byron Clark on the ‘occupation of Parliaments grounds’ referring to Voices of Freedom, Freedom & Rights Coalition, Counterspin as pushing radical action, he said.

Newshub 27/08/2022 t ‘Anti-Governments activity, protests not going away anytime soon’ reports disinformation researcher Byron Clark, saying “ Kiwi’s should get used to this over the next 12 months lead up to 2023 election”, he refers to Outdoors Party, Freedom and Rights Coalition of New Nation and Vision NZ. Clark also referred to the arrests of Counterspin Hannah Spierer and Kelvyn Alp. In another article Byron Clark stated that “Counterspin would use their arrest to fuel conspiracy theory ideas such as ‘cracking down of critical voices of critical journalists’. A worlds view of government becoming tyrannical. I personally undertook my research on this ‘ Freedom of the Press Foundation report ‘journalist arrests increased from 2019 by 1,200%. A record number of journalists have been jailed worldwide by authoritarian government in 2020 as govts cracked down on coverage of CVD19, as they tried to suppress information causing political unrest 15/12/2020)

BYRON CLARK’S BOOK REVIEW ‘FEAR’: 2nd March 2023 by Dr. Chris Wilson Program Director, Master of Conflict and Terrorism Studies Auckland University- There is need for clearer definitions of key terms, the need for much more evidence for the claims made by Byron Clark. He never defines terms, uses them interchangeably. Byron Clark’s book ‘FEAR’ offers no definition of ‘Extremism’, has used the word ‘Extremism to promote his book  and the word ‘Extremism’ not only promotes the book but is within the content of the book itself. Inclusion of the names mentioned in the book is puzzling and unconvincing, most have not legitimized violence. Those opposing vaccinations or spreading disinformation does NOT qualify a group being called ‘Far Right’ because many on the ‘Left’ and ‘In Between’ do that. There is a lack of definition and conflation of different groups, ideologies, goals and evidence. The books ‘FAILS’ to show the ‘Extremist’ movement is even present in New Zealand or even important. It ‘FAILS’ to provide a compelling case that is namely ‘Far right, Alt-right or ‘Extremist’…There is NO  base of evidence.

VOICES FOR FREEDOM: The group has not expressed  any of the views Clark has listed and none are provided in the chapter of the book that refers to them. Chris Wilson said “Whatever one thinks of the groups opposition to vaccination, lockdowns and other measures to control the spread of COVID19 this does NOT make them ‘Far Right’, they do NOT seek violence”. As for the ‘Outdoors Party’ Wilson said “there is even less evidence provided in the chapters that relate this”

GROUNDSWELL: The apparent presence in NZ of a racist Rhodesian pride movement provides no data or evidence to the claims made. The back cover of Byron Clark’s book states ‘New Zealand has one of the highest concentration of Alt-right groups compared to other nations. “This is a great marketing tool, because it will understandably shock browsers in bookstores and be repeated as a fact at parties around the country. But NO EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED FOR THE CLAIM.CHRIS WILSON ADDED: When writing about these groups care needs to be taken as to how they are described, not to exaggerate their size, intentions, organizational links. .. Book Review ‘Valuable but FLAWED’ (My personal perspective is that obviously Byron Clark is narcissistic, an obsessive liar and is busy following the money)

Politicizing, sexualizing our children in the classroom and more..’Misinformation and Disinformation’ being taught in schools, funded by Stats NZ. (Govt) . Namely Byron Clark’s and Ardern’s ‘Only Source Of Truth’ –( Carol Sakey).

Chris Hipkins announces the removal of Media Studies in High Schools in 2023. The dropping of Level 1 ‘Media Studies (NCEA). This is being called a big mistake by the Association of Media Educators saying that High School Media Studies advances critical thinking and foundational media literacy. How media texts are constructed and disseminated, different view points that shape reading and texts.  Fewer media study courses will reduce the number of qualified teachers of Media Studies in schools, the pathway to Media Studies will disappear. However Chris Hopkins talked about his concerns, the danger of people falling for COVID19 misinformation (4/3/2021). NOTE: The Government National library holds Byron Clark’s book ‘FEAR’.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MEDIA EDUCATORS “ I find it hard to believe that Chris Hipkins, as minister of health & COVIS Response Minister can warn how everyone must avoid misinformation with regard to dealing with COVID, but then as Education Minister removes the Media Studies that equips students with the skills to avoid misinformation- there is a dissonance happening here” Judith Collins states “The problem with secondary schools now is there is too much photography and too much media and other ‘Woke’ subjects”. (More dumbing down of education, stopping the young from using their own thought processes”- Carol Sakey)

SCHOOL STUDENTS TAUGHT ABOUT CONSPIRACY THEORIES, FAKE NEWS, MISINFORMATION: Urgent calls for schools to change their curriculum, to teach students how to identify conspiracy theories, fake news’ News article refers to ‘Tohatoha’, a group that is funded by Stats NZ (Govt) that teaches school students and librarians to spot fake news and conspiracy theory.

Tohatoha runs a 10 week programme for 24 schools per term Mandy Henk is the CEO of ‘Toharoha’, that. Jan Tinetti Labour’s Education Minister stated she is working on further continuous funding for ‘Tohatoha’ so the school Disinformation, Misinformation, Fake News, Conspiracy Theory programs can be continuous and consistent.

...

Please find below  my opposition to the LEGALLY BINDING  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty.

I have found that the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) “Zero Draft” the new agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, called WHO CA+, is significantly flawed.  Due to the evidence and information provided below I oppose the WHO CA+ Treaty.

(1)WHO failed miserably in preventing the spread of COVID-19, the WHO CA+ draft would dramatically expand WHO authority to declare a pandemic and, thereby, trigger provisions in the treaty that would re-allocate resources and encourage governments to waive intellectual property rights

(2)New Zealand is already playing an active part in planning the WHO CA+ without consultation of the public of New Zealand’s input. The Government have been deliberately non-transparent as to the WHO CA+ and its purposes, aims, goals as to its intention as to the WHO Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(3)The proposed Treaty is due to be introduced at the 77^th World Health Assembly in May 2024.  If New Zealand agrees and are compliant to the WHO CA+ this will risk  further increased significant tax payer payments  as to the allocation  to the added expenditure it will cost our country

(4)The World Health Organization has already miserably failed since the pandemic first evolved on many accounts, yet it appears that members of the New Zealand Government are supporting and even promoting the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(5)The draft of the WHO CA+ clearly focuses on significantly strengthening, expanding the powers of the World Health Organization which I note signed a ‘Partnership Memorandum with the World Economic Forum on 13^th June 2019.

(6)The WHO/ WEF is now  a Public-Private Partnership. The UN was never originally declared as such when it was created.  Obviously through the extraordinary super powers awarded to the WHO would also reward the Multi-stakeholder Corporations that WEF represents., therefore there is a massive conflict of interest that would effectively bring multistakeholder corporations, and those represented by the WEF huge wealth and power in the realms of  global politics and economies. The WEF is the whisperer in the ears of the WHO.

(7)The ZERO draft of the International Pandemic Treaty focuses on hugely expanding the authority, powers of World Health Organization, which give WHO the super powers to trample on ‘intellectual property rights’ and the redistribution of knowledge and technology. The WHO will become the only one, so called source of ‘Truth’, therefore having the ability to shut down the ‘True’ source of Truth., this is very dangerous.

 (8)WHO International Health Regulations 2005 failed miserably when it came to accessing China’s part in the origins of the COVID19 pandemic instead of holding them to account and responsible for their failings under the IHR2005 the WHO now parrots the CCP and even praises the Chinese regime. Therefore cannot be trusted to be such a superior force of authority over all UN Nation States.

 (9)In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of International Laws the people of New Zealand have the right to self-determine and manage their own autonomous approach to public health. This is a ‘sovereign’ right, the people of New Zealand are the ‘sovereignty who have that right. The global superior authoritative right does not lay with the WHO to control, cause damage to society, business, infrastructure or medical, technical determinations of the people of New Zealand. The people rights in New Zealand are that of ‘self determination’

(10)The people of New Zealand have in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Principles of International Law the sovereign right to determine, manage their own approach to public health, this notably also means ‘pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems pursuant to the autonomy of domestic policies, legislations. That is provided that within this domestic jurisdiction the control awarded to the state through the vote of the people in New Zealand ‘causes no harm, damage to the peoples of New Zealand’.

‘(11)Sadly I say there has been much damage done to the peoples of New Zealand through the governments misinformation as to the COVID19 immunizations and the mandating of these. The closures of businesses throughout New Zealand and the loss of work and income.  Also the closure of schools where many children have not returned back to school.

(12)The members of  New Zealand House of Representatives have shown themselves to be  non-transparency upon publicly  exposing the serious harms and deaths of post COVID 19 immunizations. The many law abiding decent people of New Zealand have been deliberately abused by members of the New Zealand mainstream news media that has been paid for by the Governments Journalist Fund.

 (13) A member of Parliament namely Michael Wood character assassinating, labelling people those who are grieved through loss of work and income, loss of businesses as a so called ‘River of Filth’. Amongst those people he called a ‘River of Filth’ and ‘Anti -Vaxers’ were those that had been vaxed and were suffering serious harms post immunization.  As noted, not one member of Parliament has apologised for this cruel emotional harm caused to people of New Zealand by members of the House of Representatives. 

(14)The mandating of COVID19 Immunization. The following  term has often been quoted by members of WHO and WEF,  and even members of NZ House of Representatives ‘No-one is safe until everyone is Safe’. Pfizer Chief Executive has publicly admitted that they did not test their COVID19 immunization for transmission prior to entering the global market place.  Evidence has shown us that those that have been injected with the Pfizer mRNA  Injection have still been infected by the virus.. . Obviously the people of New Zealand have been misled when it has come to mandating of COVID19 immunizations and mandates

(15)It is a huge concern that large Pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer have and continue to advise the Intergovernmental working group on the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty as to the Zero Draft which is a huge conflict of interest.

(16)It is a deep concern that if the New Zealand Government continues to pursue, support the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) it would give the WHO superior authority over NZ Domestic policies. WHO would have the power to declare a pandemic globally whether New Zealand is affected or not and could have the power to reallocate resources.

(17)The Zero Draft of the WHO CA + Pandemic Treaty makes transparency and cooperation mandatory (legally Binding). Uses the word ‘shall’ when referencing facilitating accessing, sharing of research and genomic data, however there are no repercussions for ‘non-compliance’. It is evidently clear that the WHO and those drafting this treaty , and those that support, promote it have learned nothing. There is no reason to believe that China would be compliant with the obligations set out in the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)  I also note that the  World Health Organizations failure to quietly abandon investigations into China’s incompetence to comply to the legally binding WHO Health Regulations (IHR 2005)

(18)The WHO CA+ Draft lets China off the hook. Despite China having the largest economy in the world the United Nations considers China as a developing country. Developed countries financially support developing countries when it comes to ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ among nations. Developed countries would share the greater costs therefore  China will likely be the beneficiary of the WHO CA+ obligation for developed nation parties, among other provisions.

(19)The WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty Zero Draft calls on the parties to tackle misleading, misinformation or disinformation. Yet the WHO  themselves have been the source of disinformation when they tweeted  “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of COVID 19.

I refer to the ‘World Health Organization ‘Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no evidence of human to human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-n CoV) identified in Wuhan Vina. Twitter January 14^th 2020 ¹⁸

^{https://twitter.com/WHO/status​/1217043229427761152} 

(20)As for the CDC on the efficacy of facial mask wearing that shifted over time, when Anthony Fauci defended flip flop accusations after shifting mask guidance, this has reported changed time and time again. There is much controversy about mask wearing. It is clearly evident that many people wear masks as chin straps. Masks do risk emotional, psychological damage to some extent. Mask wearing is not normalised behaviour so will affect people in different ways.  ^{LINK: Independent, July 29, 2021, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fauci-cdc-mask-flip-flop-b1892600.html}

(21)A recent study found that natural immunity acquired by a COVID-19 infection was “associated with lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the variant, than mRNA primary-series vaccination. Yet WHO superior authorities under a legally binding Pandemic Treaty could mandate all populations to be vaccinated, immunized without accountability. This is very dangerous.

LINK:” ^{Hiam Chemaitelly et al., “Protection from Previous Natural Infection Compared with mRNA Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Severe COVID-19 in Qatar: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” The Lancet, November 11, 202, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(​22)00287-7/fulltext (accessed February 24, 2023).}

(22)The WHO and UN Member Nation Governments and their  so called experts have been proven wrong far too often, yet the WHO Pandemic Treaty gives WHO the global super power authority to police “disinformation. This seriously infringes on the internationally accepted right to freedom of expression. (UN International  Human Rights and NZ Domestic Human Rights Legislations)

(23)The WHO CA+ Treaty Draft emphasizes ‘Equity’. It is guided by ‘Equity’, which is defined by the absence of unfair, unavoidable or remediable differences among and within countries, including between different groups of people, whether these groups are defined socially, economically, demographically, geographically or references ‘Inequality’. The term ‘Equity’ and ‘Equitable’ appear more that thirty times in the ZERO Draft of the Treaty, however there is no clear definition what this means.

(24)The people of New Zealand have the right to have clear, concise information. (ibid., Art 3,4 (3) ). It is evidential by the ZERO Draft of the WHO CA+ Treaty that it is guided by ‘Equity’, a term that is deeply rooted in ‘Marxist’ ideology and should never be embedded in the guiding principles of any international legally binding commitment of any State, including that of New Zealand.

(25)The ZERO Draft of the CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord- Convention) commits to the term ‘Universal Health Coverage’, this is not clearly defined. I stand to be corrected, but does that mean that the Government provides the peoples of New Zealand health care, is that with or without costs to the peoples of New Zealand, and at what costs must the people of New Zealand pay?. How will this indeed affect tax payers pockets?

(26)Its obvious that if the NZ House of Representatives agree, comply to the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty domestic legislations will have to be amended.  The people of New Zealand are not awarded end decision making rights when it comes to domestic policy making.    I refer to the (Non-Legally Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda), and even if this did become ‘Legally Binding’ the people of New Zealand would have no end decision rights when it comes to Domestic Policies due to the legally binding nature of the WHO CA+ Treaty.. Therefore upon voting for political parties at election time, this means that promises made to the voting public can be over- ridden by the WHO Pandemic Treaty

(27)The WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty (Accord) incorporates a ‘One Health’ approach framework. This includes ‘Humans, Animals-wild and domestic and all Eco-systems’. This means that the WHO under the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty has massive super superior control over every aspect of life on this planet.

(28)WHO CA+ Treaty under the classification  of ‘Climate Change’ will have the authority to restrict, control food systems, trade and travel, infrastructure, land use and property rights. This is scandalous and extremely dangerous when it comes to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders.

(29)Those that reside in the NZ House of Representatives are accountable to the people of New Zealand who voted them in to the political positions they hold in the New Zealand House of Representatives. To be responsible and accountable to ALL peoples of New Zealand.  Through researched evidence of viewing speeches in the House and other UN Information that New Zealand Members of Parliament are supporting, promoting and are in agreeance with the WHO ZERO Draft of the CA +.

(30) I also note that at the 77^th gathering of the World Health Assembly the final draft of the CA+ WHO International Pandemic Treaty will be produced, introduced to all UN Member Nation States to determine whether, and which UN Member States agree on the WHO International Pandemic Treaty (Accord)

(31) I therefore request that the NZ House of Representatives transparently accords the peoples of New Zealand open public debate, discussion without political intrusion as to all knowledge, information that is pertained in every ZERO draft of the WHO CA+ Pandemic Treaty as it is produced, introduced.

The draft states that the WHO CA+ “shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by UN Member Nation States, therefore clearly requires advice and consent under the process outlined.^{, “Circular 175 Procedure,” https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/l/treaty/c175/index.htm (accessed February 24, 2023).}

(32)I conclude that the  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) is highly problematic and deeply flawed and would allow the global superior powers of the World Health Organization (UN) to have authority over New Zealand’s domestic policies. One size does not fit ALL and there is no evidence of ‘trustworthiness’ as to why the people of New Zealand should support this WHO Treaty proposal.

(33)The ‘Public-Private’ partnership of the World Economic Forum with the UN is a huge conflict of interest as they are  the ‘whisperers in the ear’ of the UN, therefore also  rewarded global superiority political, economical control through the  WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) agreeance.

Therefore, for all the above reasons , information provided I totally oppose the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty (Accord). I find it to be highly dangerous to the health and wellbeing of ALL peoples of New Zealand. I have cc’d other groups, individuals, organizations, members of parliament the above information-communication t as outlined to the NZ House of Representatives as to opposition of the WHO CA+ International Pandemic Treaty.

I request a response at your earliest. Thank you.

 

Carol Sakey

...