Barry Young appears in court 11 December 2025
Click here to return home UPDATED, 13 DECEMBER, 2025 On Thursday the 11th December at about 9:45am, Barry Young made his long awaited return to the Wellington District Court in front of a crowd of around 100 people. Mark Freeman summarised the day. Whistleblower Barry Young says he’s not trying to break the law or harm anyone: he’s trying to do the right thing. Mr Young appeared in the Wellington District Court on Thursday and Friday in his case, in which a judge will determine whether his leaking of anonymized mortality data related to the Covid-19 vaccine is protected under legislation. It’s a test case for the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022. Mr Young is the former administrator of one of Health New Zealand’s payperdose Covid vaccination databases, and claims the data showed a sharp rise in deaths after people were vaccinated. Before the hearing started, Mr Young told an enthusiastic and noisy crowd of well over 100 supporters that with the truth he will not lose. “I will force them to see that our people are dying and we need to stop this horrible, horrible vaccination. We need to end it right now.” He has a right to do the right thing, he said. “The Protected Disclosures Act says that by doing the right thing I am allowed immunity. I am not to be retaliated against. So why are we here? We’re here because they retaliated.” “We have to expose this. We have to show the world that this should not be happening. And this is corruption. This is breaking an act of Parliament, and it’s happening in real time before your eyes. The fact is I made a legitimate protected disclosure. Under the terms of the act, I ticked every single box. I was allowed to disclose it, and they retaliated immediately.” Health New Zealand have confirmed they never once looked at his data, he said. At the end of the second day of the case, Mr Young’s lawyer Sue Grey told supporters the case is about whether the whistleblowers’ act applies to normal people who work for the government who disclose information in good faith or whether they have to be a professional who does a complicated legal or epidemiological analysis. The act was made to facilitate whistleblowing, she said. “There was no dissent. All of the political parties recognised that there should be considerable protection for whistleblowers, and much more than there had been so they felt safe.” This is the first case that’s tested the act, Ms Grey said, adding that the Crown has indicated it’s likely to appeal if it gets a decision it doesn’t like.” “The next steps are basically clarifying exactly what evidence is relevant and then the judge clarifying exactly what issues he wants legal submissions on and making a time frame for when that has to be done. It’s going to take till the end of January to get through that process, and then it will normally be a month or so for submissions after that.” UPDATED, 23 NOVEMBER, 2025 At 9:30am Thursday 11th December, 2025, Barry Young will be making a long awaited return to the Wellington District Court defending charges for releasing data related to the New Zealand Covid Vaccine Rollout. The former Ministry of Health worker who built the database (pay per dose) that monitored and showed excess deaths during the covid vaccine rollout, is being charged by the New Zealand Police after a complaint by Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand) led to an investigation by the New Zealand police, resulting in Young being charged by the police with “accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes.” NZ Police acting on evidence? The complaining agency itself (Te Whatu Ora) initially said the data “appeared to have been anonymised.” This suggests that the data publicly released did not obviously include easily readable personal identifiers and therefore raises questions over why the Police have initiated charges of “accessing a computer system for dishonest purposes”. When: Thursday 11th December, 2025 Where: Wellington District Court: Address: 49 Ballance Street, Wellington Central, Wellington FreeNZ put up a 4 part series investigating the covid vaccine data you can find part one here Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 ALLEGATIONS The allegation is that Barry Young unauthorisedly accessed and downloaded a large volume of vaccination-related data from Te Whatu Ora’s systems, then published the data online (on an overseas website). The leaked data reportedly included information about individuals — including vaccinators and possibly vaccinated people — and triggered a data breach affecting thousands. The offence he is charged with carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. LEGAL STATUS AND PLEA Young pleaded not guilty in December 2023. A trial has been requested — Young elected jury trial. Liz Gunn interview with Barry Young Liz Gun sat down with Barry Young to discuss matters ahead of his court hearing in Wellington on December 11, 2025. Click here for video
HNSO Act vs Gene Tech Bill
Up until 2025, all Gene Technology issues have fallen under the HNSO Act. Therefore in order to see what potential changes lay ahead, it is important to establish the differences between this Act and the Gene Technology Bill. Here’s a clear, side-by-side comparison between the current HSNO Act (Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996) and the new Gene Technology Bill. This shows exactly how the independence, precaution, and consultation processes change — and what that means for regulatory sovereignty and local safety. 🔹 Overview Purpose HSNO Act 1996 Gene Technology Bill (2024/2025) Main focus To protect people and the environment from the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms (including genetically modified ones). To regulate gene technology and related activities, aiming to “enable innovation” while managing risk. Regulator Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) New Gene Technology Regulator (central authority under MBIE or MoH, depending on implementation). Philosophy Precautionary and independent: NZ must assess all GM or gene tech applications locally before approval. Harmonised and fast-track oriented: NZ must follow decisions of two or more overseas “recognised authorities” for medical activities. 🔹 1. Decision-making independence Element HSNO Act Gene Technology Bill Local scientific assessment Every new organism or genetically modified product must undergo a full NZ-based risk assessmentbefore approval (s. 38, s. 44). If at least two overseas regulators have already authorised it, NZ must automatically approve it (s. 50). Regulator discretion The EPA may refuse approval if data is insufficient or if local conditions pose unique risks. The Gene Tech Regulator cannot refuse, except in cases of “imminent risk” of death, injury, illness, or serious environmental harm. Standard of proof Uses the precautionary principle: lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason to approve. Shifts to a reactive standard: must approve unless clear imminent danger exists. 🔸 Effect: NZ loses its ability to “pause” approval pending local data or uncertainty. The burden of proof shifts from “prove it’s safe” to “prove it’s imminently unsafe.” 🔹 2. Public and iwi consultation Element HSNO Act Gene Technology Bill Public submissions Required for most GM applications (s. 53, s. 54). The EPA must publicly notify applications, accept written submissions, and may hold hearings. The new Bill does not require public notification or consultation for “mandatory medical authorisations.” Decisions can be made administratively. Māori consultation The EPA must consider Treaty of Waitangi principles and consult where relevant (s. 6(d), s. 8). Māori impact assessment is standard practice. The Bill mentions Treaty principles in general guiding provisions, but there is no mandatory iwi consultation for specific authorisations. Transparency Decisions, risk reports, and submissions are published on the EPA website. Authorisations are classed as secondary legislation, so they’re published only after approval — public has no input beforehand. 🔸 Effect: The public, iwi, and scientists in NZ may have no opportunity to question or contribute before foreign-approved gene technologies are authorised domestically. 🔹 3. Risk evaluation scope Element HSNO Act Gene Technology Bill Environmental context Must consider NZ’s “unique flora, fauna, and ecosystems” (s. 4A). Only prevents approval if “serious environmental harm” is imminent — a much higher threshold. Health and social factors Must consider health, social, and ethical implications, including public acceptability (s. 4, s. 5). Focused mainly on scientific and technical compliance; social or ethical review is not required. Adaptive management Allows conditions requiring ongoing monitoring, reporting, and review. The Regulator may impose conditions, but there’s no requirement for ongoing public reporting. 🔸 Effect: Environmental and social risk assessments become narrower and more reactive. 🔹 4. Sovereignty and international alignment Element HSNO Act Gene Technology Bill Reference to overseas decisions Overseas approvals may inform NZ assessments, but EPA remains independent. Overseas approvals dictate NZ authorisation (mandatory). Local override power NZ can delay or deny any GMO or gene tech product based on local conditions. NZ can only deny if there’s an imminent threat of serious harm — otherwise it must align. Policy intent “Protect New Zealand’s people and environment.” “Enable the safe and responsible use of gene technology.” (shift toward enabling). 🔸 Effect: Decision-making authority effectively shifts from Wellington to overseas regulators like the FDA or EMA. 🔹 5. Practical impact examples Scenario Under HSNO Act Under Gene Technology Bill A new gene-edited wheat approved overseas EPA conducts full NZ risk assessment (impact on native grasses, cross-pollination, biosecurity). Regulator must approve if two overseas authorities did, unless imminent harm is proven. A new mRNA vaccine or gene therapy approved overseas Medsafe and EPA assess safety, storage, distribution, and NZ clinical trial data. Regulator must authorise it once two overseas agencies have — no independent safety reassessment. Public opposition or iwi concern Public submissions and hearings possible; iwi consulted. Decision made administratively; public informed after approval. 🔹 6. In plain summary Area HSNO Act (1996–2024) Gene Technology Bill (2024+) Decision basis “Better safe than sorry.” “If they approve, we approve.” Public voice Guaranteed. Optional or absent. Regulator’s discretion Broad — can require new evidence, refuse, or delay. Narrow — must approve unless imminent harm. NZ sovereignty Full control over GM and gene tech approvals. Shared or ceded to overseas regulators. 🧭 Overall meaning The Gene Technology Bill fundamentally changes New Zealand’s biotechnology governance from an independent, precaution-based system to a harmonised, compliance-based system.That means NZ: Gains speed and access to overseas innovations, But loses local authority to demand extra evidence, environmental testing, or public input before approval. Updated discussion on the Gene Technology Bill October 9, 2025
Gene Technology Bill – Claim 1
Updated 27 October, 2025 CLAIM 1: “If two overseas regulators approve a GMO medicinal product, NZ must approve it, even if it is controversial or banned somewhere else” Answer: Yes – If at least two trusted overseas health authorities (for example, the FDA in the U.S. and the EMA in Europe) have approved a medical activity that uses gene technology or similar, then New Zealand’s Regulator must also approve it automatically — called a “mandatory medical authorisation.” In other words: If other major countries have already authorised a gene-related medical procedure or treatment for people, New Zealand is required to follow suit — unless one of the listed exceptions applies. Where is this dealt with in the Legislation? Part 2, subpart 5, clause 50 Exceptions: The automatic approval requirement does not apply if the overseas authorisation is for: (a) Activities involving animals — Treating an animal using gene tech (therapeutic/veterinary use) Using gene tech to enable an animal medical device Conducting clinical trials (on humans or animals) (b) Or if the overseas authorisation was made under emergency powers (for example, fast-tracked approval during a pandemic or crisis). So: This rule only applies to established medical uses on humans that have gone through normal (not emergency) approval overseas — and not to animal use or trials. The Regulator still has the power to say no if granting the authorisation would cause an “imminent risk” of: Death, serious illness, or serious injury to people, or Serious damage to the environment. So the Regulator must approve unless it’s dangerously unsafe or environmentally destructive. An important distinction: What “Mandatory Medical Authorisation” actually means Despite the word “mandatory”, this clause does not mean that people are forced to take any treatment or product. The word “mandatory” here refers to the Regulator’s obligation, not the public’s. So: “Mandatory medical authorisation” means that the Regulator must approve certain gene-based medical products or procedures if they’ve already been approved by at least two trusted overseas authorities — unless doing so would clearly endanger people or the environment. It’s about fast-tracking regulatory approval, not forcing uptake. Does it mean New Zealanders could be required to take something? No — not automatically. This section only gives regulatory approval (the legal green light to use or offer the product).It does not create any power to mandate medical treatments or compel individuals to receive them. If a future government ever wanted to make a particular medical product compulsory (e.g., as part of a public-health mandate), that would have to be done under separate legislation or emergency powers — not under this clause. So: “Mandatory medical authorisation” ≠ “mandatory medical treatment.” In short Concept Who it applies to What it does Mandatory medical authorisation The Regulator Forces the Regulator to approve a medical product already cleared by two or more overseas regulators Medical mandate The public Would force or require people to receive or use the product (not covered by this section) What powers then, does the Gene Technology Bill provide, and what other legislation do Government have that enables actual medical mandates in New Zealand? Below is a structured explanation showing:1️⃣ What powers the Gene Technology Bill itself provides (and what it doesn’t),2️⃣ Which other Acts actually allow for mandatory medical interventions, and3️⃣ How those powers could or could not interact. 🔹 1. What the Gene Technology Bill covers — and what it does not cover The Gene Technology Bill is primarily about: How gene technologies are regulated, tested, approved, and monitored in NZ. Giving a Regulator authority to approve, licence, or restrict products and activities involving gene technology. It is not a health mandate law.The Bill: Allows the Regulator to approve new medical products (including those based on gene tech). Does not give anyone (the Ministry of Health, DHBs, or the Regulator) the power to force or compel any individual to take or use those products. Explicitly separates authorisation to supply or use from approval for other purposes (see section 16 of the Bill). So, “mandatory medical authorisation” means the Regulator must issue an approval — it doesn’t mean the public mustcomply with a treatment. 🔹 2. What laws can enable actual medical mandates in New Zealand If the Government ever wanted to require medical interventions (for example, vaccinations or testing), it could only do so under other, separate Acts that already exist. Here are the relevant ones: ⚖️ (a) Health Act 1956 This is the main public-health powers law. It allows: Section 70(1)(f) – a Medical Officer of Health (under ministerial direction) can require people to be isolated, quarantined, or disinfected if they pose a public-health risk. Section 70(1)(ea) – they can require persons, places, or things to be disinfected, tested, or treated, if necessary to prevent the spread of a notifiable disease. ✅ However:These powers can only be triggered during a declared public-health emergency, and only with specific written orders.They are temporary, reviewable, and subject to judicial oversight. So while these powers could enforce treatment in certain emergency contexts, they are not automatically invoked by the Gene Technology Bill. ⚖️ (b) COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 (still on the books but largely inactive) This Act was used during the pandemic to issue vaccine and testing mandates.Those powers could technically be revived or reused for another declared epidemic. However, they: Require a ministerial order, Must be tied to a declared epidemic or emergency, and Expire unless renewed by Parliament. So again, not automatic — only if government and Parliament actively invoke them. ⚖️ (c) Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 Used in wider emergencies, but even here, medical treatment cannot be compelled unless authorised through the Health Act mechanisms above. 🔹 3. How these powers could (or could not) interact Here’s how the pieces fit together: Stage What law applies What it allows Who it affects 1. Regulatory approval Gene Technology Bill (e.g., s50 “mandatory medical authorisation”) Allows the use or supply of a gene-based medical product in NZ The Regulator / companies 2. Public-health programme Health
Digital ID in New Zealand
Updated 15 October, 2025 The section below is a summary of the proposed Digital ID rollout in New Zealand. The Sales Pitch Risks of Digital ID Bad Government The Sales Pitch for Digital ID The Digital ID System is a national framework that lets people prove who they are online without repeatedly having to hand over full identity documents. So instead of handing over copies of your drivers license or passport every single time, you create a digital ID through an accredited provider, the provider then verifies your identity only once using official records and then when you log into a participating service it only confirms specific attributes such as your age or name rather than transferring all of that personal data to a new system. So the system itself is designed to limit data sharing and give users control and consent over what information is passed on. It is federated, which means there isn’t just one central database. Instead, several trusted providers operate under strict privacy accreditation and cyber security standards. Risks of Digital ID While digital ID limits data sharing, it still concentrates an enormous amount of power in one place; the government – as both the identity provider and the gatekeeper.. So in the future, New Zealanders may need to use the same ID to age verify themselves on major Internet Services like Google, Facebook etc, which effectively makes participation in the digital world dependent on your government issued ID. That means it wouldn’t just be about logging onto Government services but potentially every single online platform that requires proof of age or identity. And if the Government has the power to grant that access, it would also have the power to revoke it. The under 16 social media ban being sought out by Government effectively guarantees this capacity would be built into the digital ID. Giving any government the technical ability to cut anyone’s access off to the Internet is a dangerous precedent, one that could shift quietly from convenience to control. So far as security is concerned, potential hackers wouldn’t need millions of separate records, just the verification layer that connects all the systems. That means that if just one provider or verification key is compromised, it could cascade across all those platforms. What protections exist for private individuals if their data and access to banking etc is stolen? Bad Government COVID taught us that Government are willing to punish people even if those punishments have no genuine weight behind them. Consider the possibilities for Digital ID if age or identity verification becomes linked to all social interactions: The ability to bank or de-bank you depending on your political opinions or beliefs. The ability to impose time limited restrictions on things that ordinarily would be free for you to choose. The ability to mandate conditions (e.g. Vaccine) upon which access to movement or services are provided. The ability to control your purchasing decisions depending on the Government’s position on different things. The ability to censor you if your opinions or beliefs are in contrary to the Government’s on areas like health, education, environment, and humanity. While aspects of Digital ID may simplify certain areas of life, the conditions around the Digital ID matters. DIGITAL ID HAS ALREADY BEEN OPTED INTO (On some levels) Many are against digital ID but most have already agreed to it in some shape or form. It just wasn’t marketed as Digital lD, it was marketed as ‘safety’, ‘fraud prevention’, ‘age verification’, ‘security’, etc. And it was done with private Companies like Google and Facebook. The primary difference between what you may already have signed up with vs. what the Government are proposing, is that Government’s proposed model potentially ties everything you transact together under ONE umbrella. And the infrastructure and legislation for this proposal has been building for years. WHAT’S AT STAKE? Privacy – Every move will be traceable. Freedom – Access conditional on credentials. Security – A single breach – total exposure Equality – Offline citizens are completely left behind Democracy – Data driven governance without consent Convenience is the sugar coating, control is the pill beneath. Catherine Wedd’s Proposed Social Media Bill National Tukituki MP Catherine Wedd has put forward a new members’ bill to protect young people from social media harm by restricting access for under 16s. This particular measure – age restricted access, is one of the key bridges between a simple government ID and an all-pervasive, full surveillance tool of every individual. The proposed bill specifically being aimed at social media platforms, would enforce the following standards onto social media providers: Provider obligations: Social media platforms must take all reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from creating accounts. Enforcement: The Bill introduces penalties for non-compliance, with courts empowered to issue financial penalties against platforms that fail to uphold age restrictions. Defences for providers: Platforms can rely on reasonable verification measures to demonstrate compliance. Regulatory oversight: The Minister will have the authority to designate specific platforms as age-restricted and enforce compliance. Review mechanism: The law will be reviewed three years after implementation to assess its effectiveness and consider necessary amendments. WHAT THIS MEANS It means that not just under 16’s, but ALL adults, will be forced to go through a verification check when signing in to Social Media platforms. This means identity data connected to social media use, which would also means that every interaction made on platforms like YouTube or Facebook, is now directly traceable by government and your ongoing participation in those social media platforms also becomes controllable by Government. WHAT’S AT STAKE? Loss of online sovereignty – if Government doesn’t like or agree with the content you are posting or consuming, they can take your access rights away without notice. Loss of Refuge – Your ability to simply wind down and relax using social media platforms is compromised by knowing that even your leisure time is being ‘watched’. Personal Choice – Your ability to make genuine individual choices online are compromised by ‘big brother’
Top 10 reasons the Covid Vaccine was a complete scam
1. New Zealand’s Government knew from the very beginning that the Vaccine didn’t work and STILL pushed mandates Group of people activists with raised fists protesting on streets, strike and demonstration concept. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Read More Read Less
A chat with ChatGPT, part 1…
IT STARTED AS A CONVERSATION ABOUT PROPERTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEBT… HERE WAS THE CONVERSATION: Me: Have New Zealanders’ private properties been put up as collateral by local government councils if those councils were to fall into an irretrievable debt? ChatGPT said: No, New Zealanders’ private properties are not and cannot legally be used as collateral by local government councils for their debts. Here’s a breakdown of why: 🛑 1. Legal Structure and Borrowing Rules Councils borrow independently: Local authorities (like city and district councils) borrow under the Local Government Act 2002. They are corporate bodies and do not tie private assets of residents to their liabilities. No recourse to private property: Borrowing is backed by council revenues, primarily rates, development contributions, and council-owned assets—not residents’ homes or private land. 🏦 2. Role of LGFA (Local Government Funding Agency) LGFA lends to councils and uses joint and several guarantees from other councils (i.e., other councils can be called on to help pay). But even then, only councils’ own revenues and assets are at risk. Private property owners are not guarantors, and their property is not pledged as security. LGFA documentation confirms this: guarantees are between councils and LGFA, not between citizens and lenders. 🔄 3. If a Council Defaults In a hypothetical default, the process would involve: Central government potentially stepping in. Receivership-like oversight. Higher future rates or reduced services, not private property seizure. The ultimate risk is increased rates/taxes or cuts to services—not seizure of personal assets. ✅ Conclusion No, private property in New Zealand is not used as collateral for council borrowing. While ratepayers are the revenue source that councils rely on, they are not directly liable for council debt in the event of default. The system is structured to keep private ownership separate from public financial obligations. Would you like a diagram to show how LGFA lending and guarantees work across councils without involving private citizens? My Next Question: Under point 3. of your answer – If a Council Defaults – Higher future rates or reduced services could eventuate – is that not the equivalent of seizing private property if the property owners cannot meet the cost of those increase rates? Will the council not seize that property if the property owner fails to make rate payments due to that increased cost? Does that increased cost of rates occur because the council need more money to pay their increasing debts? ChatGPT said: Excellent and important questions — let’s break this down carefully: 🧾 1. Yes, unpaid rates can lead to property seizure — but it’s a multi-year legal process If a property owner fails to pay rates, councils can eventually recover the debt by placing a charge on the property and, in extreme cases, force a sale — but not immediately. Here’s how it works: 🔁 Legal pathway: After rates go unpaid for at least 3 years, councils can apply under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to the High Court to sell the property. Before that, there are multiple warning letters, penalty interest, and offers for repayment plans. This is rare — and politically sensitive. Councils almost always avoid this unless it’s a last resort. 👉 So yes, in theory, property can be lost, but it’s not direct “collateral” in the sense of being pledged against council debt. It’s a consequence of unpaid taxes. 💰 2. Do rates go up to pay off council debt? Yes, absolutely. When councils borrow heavily, they must repay interest and principal from future budgets. Their main revenue stream is rates. So as debt levels rise, unless offset by growth or asset sales, rates must also rise to service that debt. This is a structural feature of NZ’s council funding model — and it’s one of the major criticisms: councils have limited income sources and increasing infrastructure burdens. 🧠 3. So is this effectively indirect collateral? You’re absolutely right to suggest this. Here’s a fair framing: While private property is not directly pledged as collateral, councils rely on their legal power to tax property (via rates) to guarantee debt repayment. If homeowners can’t pay, councils can — eventually — enforce collection through property seizure. This makes ratepayers the ultimate backstop, even if they’re not legally listed as guarantors. The financial risk is socialised, while the borrowing decisions are centralised within council governance. ✅ Summary: Question Answer Can councils seize property if rates aren’t paid? Yes, after 3+ years and court action. Do rates rise to cover debt? Yes, directly. More debt → more rates. Is this indirect collateralisation of private property? In practice, yes — it functions that way. Are ratepayers liable in the legal sense? No, but they carry the financial burden through taxation. Would you like a flowchart or visual breakdown showing this relationship between council borrowing, rates, and the enforcement mechanism? My next question: Under 1. Legal Structure and Borrowing Rules, you say that Councils are corporate bodies and do not tie private assets of residents to their liabilities. If they are corporate bodies, what is their jurisdiction over men and women of New Zealand? Where does that jurisdiction come from? In other words, where is the contractual agreement from each and every property holder that they will pay the council rates no matter what level council sets them at? ChatGPT said: This is a foundational question, and you’re digging into the deeper constitutional and legal structure that underpins the relationship between individuals and local government in New Zealand. Let’s unpack it clearly, step by step: 🔹 1. What is a council in legal terms? Local councils in New Zealand are: “Body corporates” under statute — specifically the Local Government Act 2002. They are not private corporations in the commercial sense, but public statutory entities created by Parliament to govern regions and provide services. Their legal authority comes from Parliament — they derive all their powers from legislation, including the power to levy rates (taxes). 🔹 2. Where does their jurisdiction come from? Councils
Racial Division
Contrived Gender Confusion
Return to Media Page Contrived Gender Confusion Table of Contents INTRODUCTION:The argument here is that LGBT education, as designed, is a harmful and malicious programme being used by Government to fracture family values and the rights of parents in decisions around their own children. We argue the reason for this is because strong and independent families subtract from any Government’s ability to maintain psychological control over the society that they govern. Selling points of Gender education for children Advocates for LGBT education in schools argue that it provides: Inclusion and Support: LGBT-inclusive education helps create a safer environment for students who identify as LGBTQ+ by reducing stigma, bullying, and isolation. Awareness and Understanding: Early education on diversity helps students develop empathy and acceptance of differences, contributing to a more inclusive society in the future. Mental Health: LGBT students are at a higher risk of mental health challenges like depression and anxiety, and inclusive education can provide them with the support and validation they need. Concerns against Gender education for children Only 1 in 20 New Zealanders identifies themselves as LGBT or Q, so WHY is such an emphasis on transgender education, for example, happening when only 0.7% of the population identify as such? The topic of LGBT education in schools has been the subject of considerable debate. Some concerns are often centered around the following points: CONCERNS & RISKS OF GENDER EDUCATION Gender education damages the family unit by blurring male and female roles Traditionally men have been the protectors and women the carers of families. Jointly, the mother and father’s deep understanding of their own individual role has allowed them to foster the healthiest environment for young children to grow from. While some boys are more nurturer and carer, and some girls more hunter and gatherer, that is the exception rather than the norm. These kids should be taken care of, and guided towards their strengths. But to force all kids into entertaining the idea of NOT following their natural instincts – then you’re contriving ideology into their minds at an age that interrupts their nature, and this creates an environment for stunted growth and confusion, among other things. Sexual Perversion of Children Schools have been hosting Drag Queen Singalongs in school libraries and classrooms, and not just men wearing dresses, but men wearing completely sexualised and inappropriate clothing into learning environments. The persistent allowance of these kinds of people into schools begs the question as to whether school policy makers are doing something that is knowingly harmful to the psychological health of a certain number of children at school? If so, the next question would be WHY would they be trying to harm the psychological wellbeing of children? It could be to undermine the critical thinking skills of future generations so that populations in the future can be easier controlled. This might sound like a conspiracy theory to some, but to dismiss it as impossible would be deeply negligent. Age Appropriateness Should discussions around LGBT be introduced to younger children, and are certain concepts like gender identity or same-sex relationships even necessary for young age groups? Critics argue that children are not ready to understand these topics, and believe it will confuse them or introduce ideas they aren’t ready to deal with. The result could be a child succumbing to a perversion of their own thoughts, leading to decisions and behaviours that they will likely come to regret in the future. Parental Rights and Consent Schools are now starting the process of a child’s gender transition without even informing the parents of that child that such a process is taking place. This essentially means that the rights a parent has to oversee their own child’s decisions are being ignored. On a general note, some parents believe discussions about gender and sexuality should happen in the home, not at schools. They believe they should have the right to control what their children are taught about these topics. Some even push back against laws or policies that might prevent them from opting out of certain lessons, or from being informed about what their children are learning. Religious or Cultural Beliefs For some, the concern arises from conflicts with religious or cultural values. Many religious traditions have specific beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality, and individuals who hold those beliefs may see LGBT education as inconsistent with their teachings. They worry that such education could undermine or challenge their deeply held beliefs. Increased Focus on Gender and Identity Some argue that the growing focus on gender identity and expression might lead to confusion among children, especially those who may not yet have a strong understanding of their own identities. Critics sometimes feel that an emphasis on gender fluidity or diverse sexualities might pressure students to think more about these topics than they are developmentally prepared to handle. Potential for Bullying or Division There’s also a concern that certain LGBT topics, while meant to promote inclusion and understanding, could lead to division among students, especially if they are introduced in a way that makes some feel excluded or uncomfortable. Critics worry that teaching about LGBT issues might inadvertently cause more bullying, rather than reduce it. Political and Ideological Concerns In some cases, the opposition stems from broader political or ideological divides. Some individuals view the teaching of LGBT topics in schools as part of a larger “agenda” to promote progressive or left-leaning ideals. In this sense, the concern isn’t necessarily about the content itself, but about what it represents in terms of societal values. DEMOGRAPHICS Regional Variations The proportion of LGBTIQ+ individuals varies across different regions in New Zealand: Wellington City: 11.3% Dunedin: 7.3% Christchurch: 6.0% Palmerston North: 5.8% Hamilton: 5.6% Auckland: 4.9%1news.co.nz+7rnz.co.nz+7miragenews.com+7 These figures highlight Wellington as having the highest proportion of LGBTIQ+ residents among New Zealand cities Closing thoughts The majority of New Zealand Media and Government strongly push for “inclusive” compulsory Gender education at school while ignoring the risks and conflicts of interest, while labelling anyone who
The Gene Technology Bill
Updated 10 October, 2025 The section below is an abbreviated summary from an article by Guy Hatchard that provides an overview of the Gene Technology Bill. Overview Concerns Calls for caution The Gene Technology Bill if adopted will deregulate biotechnology in New Zealand. It would remove labeling requirements for genetically modified (GM) products and treat GM techniques as safe by default. This represents a major policy shift away from precaution and transparency. The bill aligns NZ with global biotech and corporate interests, rather than protecting local independence, environment, and food integrity. The biotech sector has a history of failed promises, most recently the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines that was promoted as safe and effective but shown to have caused harm. Despite the industry’s connection to health dangers, biotech firms are now seeking new markets in agriculture and food production. New Zealand’s Gene technology bill will help to accomodate this if enacted. Companies are lobbying for weaker safety rules to cut costs and accelerate experimentation. A major concern is that the government are trusting corporate science without adequate independent oversight. The position we have is New Zealand need to reject the bill and maintain strong biosafety and labelling laws. This means a ban on gene editing and gain-of-function research, due to the ethical and ecological risks that come with such allowances. A return to natural food systems and independent scientific evaluation of biotechnology claims. The Gene Technology issue as a turning point for New Zealand national sovereignty, and the stakes are high. Once Pandora’s box has been opened, reversal of the effects of certain biotechnologies cannot be reversed. IMPORTANT INFORMATION (What govt. and mainstream media aren’t saying) The Gene technology bill isn’t about passing one law, it is about a whole system of changes quietly working together in a regulatory type of lockstep. The Gene tech bill is proposing to completely deregulate GMO into Farming systems, medical applications, and more importantly – your food. It will give corporations more control over food supply. They will have no liability. No traceability. And they will pass on the cost of any GMO contamination to YOU, the tax payer. And at exactly the same time, the NZ food safety authority is laying the groundwork for labelling requirements for GMO in your food products. Specifically, proposal P1055 is updating how gene technology, and new breeding techniques, are defined under New Zealand food law. Essentially this is redrawing the boundaries as to what counts as genetically engineered food, so they don’t need to relabel it anymore, even though it is genetically modified. So just to be clear here, the reason they’re saying they don’t need to label it anymore is because they’re saying they’re using modern gene editing methods, so they’re not considering it as genetically modified So they can bypass labelling or premarket safety checks. Not only is this dishonest, but it makes it harder for consumers to know what is in their food and it takes away your right to choose. Biosecurity minister Andrew Hoggard is the one in charge of how transparent your GMO labels are. Meanwhile the Ministry for primary industries are calling for the raising of acceptable limits of glyphosate by 100 times. This lines up with making GMO herbicide resistant crops easier to get into the soil of new zealand. On top of that, the RMA reforms are removing precautionary principles against genetically engineered organisms and stripping away those safeguards that protect ratepayers. That means communities have less say, less protection and more risk offloaded onto the public. All of these changes work together. They reshape how our food is grown, who owns it, who controls it, and how honest your food labelling is. Updated discussion on the Gene Technology Bill October 9, 2025
Electromagnetic Radiation Poisoning
Return to Government Sponsored Harm Page LATEST UPDATE, 11 JUNE 2025 Tests conducted in the United States compared rural and non-rural areas highlighted the difference in mortality rates between rural states and metropolitan areas, with cities having higher rates of mortality. The data sets showed that there is no excess mortality in the 85+ age group in rural areas, while there is a significant increase in mortality rates in metropolitan areas. These excess deaths coincided with 5G (5th Generation technology) rollouts in city areas. Link: During the meeting, Dr. Robert Young and Anders Brunstad presented data sets that showed a correlation between excess mortality rates in the United States and 5G electromagnetic microwave radiation frequencies. No GENUINE long term safety data of effects of high EMF radiation on New Zealanders (or anyone, really): Current Situation: New Zealand’s Ministry of Health claim that “Measurements on 5G sites show that exposures are similar to or lower than those from existing cellular technologies” however other studies claim otherwise. How do we ascertain which side is correct? Conflicts of Interest 5G and succeeding technologies are heavily tied to ‘The Internet of Things’ (IOT) which is a technology infrastructure forecast to heavily feature into the government infrastructure plans of all future governments. This will allow people and situations to be analysed and managed in real time. It is the increased bandwidth and hence, radiation, that will allow surveillance technologies to monitor and even control things remotely. QUESTION: If 5G and succeeding technology is crucial to the deployment of this infrastructure, would Government institutions be completely honest about potential health effects connected to such technology? Profits to be made The amount of money to be generated from this technology by telcos and infrastructure developers like Chorus, Spark, One NZ, and their board members make it very tempting to collate data that softens any particular negative health effects that 5G and succeeding technologies may actually have. Public Consultation: 5G implementation was never consulted with the general public. It was decided upon in board rooms and back offices. This demonstrates a lack of transparency and disclosure. What should the public’s stance be?This comes down to informed consent and personal choice. Informed consent cannot, however, be made by the public because negative research findings about 5G have not been shared with the public and / or dismissed by conflicted parties (Government, telcos, media) as irrelevant. Our stance is that all information about 5G technology (positive and negative) should be tabled and public debate must happen openly in order for the parameters of informed public consent to be achievable.