COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill

[Katman]

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2020/0246/latest/whole.html?fbclid=IwAR0Yb6gbrfun-FvZQWEWUDf8MliPcLTXUOvD88ByL66QKjTMOFjQuSG-Pa4#LMS344177

This legislation is currently being rushed through Parliament.

Is it just me or does Subsection 20 (1), (2) and (3) appear to contradict each other?

[ellipsis]

...very contradictory...

[pritch]

Is it just me or does Subsection 20 (1), (2) and (3) appear to contradict each other?

Nah, just you. Sections 2 & 3 seem intended to limit the power granted under 1. (In theory at least.)

[Katman]

Nah, just you. Sections 2 & 3 seem intended to limit the power granted under 1. (In theory at least.)

So can they or can't they enter a private dwellinghouse or marae?

[ellipsis]

...seems more like giving the cops lots of options to do what they like and muddy the waters when they abuse their new powers...

[Katman]

...seems more like giving the cops lots of options to do what they like and muddy the waters when they abuse their new powers...

Sounds like a conspiracy in the making.

[TheDemonLord]

Rushed Legislation?
Poorly written?
By people who have no idea what they are doing?
Granting the Police new powers with little to no oversight?

Now, where have I seen that before? (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0012/latest/whole.html)

[mashman]

"The measures in the Bill take account of the particular characteristics of COVID-19 such as its contagious nature and potential for asymptomatic transmission, which create the risk of spread and a need to impose restrictions at an aggregate as well as an individual level.".

Some people might have an extended home stay... until they're vaccinated ;)

[Katman]

Some people might have an extended home stay... until they're vaccinated ;)

Now there's a novel thought.

[pritch]

So can they or can't they enter a private dwellinghouse or marae?

Yes - if they have reasonable grounds to suspect there is a gathering in contravention of Section 11 and to give direction under S 21. If a problem arose later, they would be sure to have had "reasonable grounds" - whether they did or not. :whistle:

[Katman]

Rushed Legislation?
Poorly written?
By people who have no idea what they are doing?
Granting the Police new powers with little to no oversight?

So would you support a move to introduce mandatory vaccination?

[TheDemonLord]

So would you support a move to introduce mandatory vaccination?

We've covered this, at length.

[Katman]

We've covered this, at length.

Remind me.

[ellipsis]

...it looks like a couple of amendments have been forced on the Bill already...



...some parts of the police seem to think they already run the show...our freedoms are being fucked with by power hungry arseholes on a few fronts...


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300011014/police-trial-facial-recognition-tech-without-clearance

[caseye]

...it looks like a couple of amendments have been forced on the Bill already...



...some parts of the police seem to think they already run the show...our freedoms are being fucked with by power hungry arseholes on a few fronts...


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300011014/police-trial-facial-recognition-tech-without-clearance

Agreed! Pity we can't do a damnd thing about it, as the general population think it's necessary and would not dare to cross Aunty!

[mashman]

Now there's a novel thought.

Bit of a bummer if you're asymptomatic, and I do wonder what they'll do to those human beings in order to keep everyone else safe. Can't exactly throw them in jail. I'm hanging out for a kind of Running Man type solution to generate some revenue. If nothing else those dirty asymptomatics will earn a living.

[jasonu]

Agreed! Pity we can't do a damnd thing about it, as the general population think it's necessary and would not dare to cross Aunty!

Don't worry mate our Jacinda will see us right.

[TheDemonLord]

Agreed! Pity we can't do a damnd thing about it, as the general population think it's necessary and would not dare to cross Aunty!

Can't we?

Even using the lowest estimated numbers, the NZ Populace outmans and out-guns the NZ Police and NZDF by a comfortable 4-1 for Semi-autos and if you include all firearm types - it's more like 20-1.

Or we can go to the ballot box.

[TheDemonLord]

Remind me.

Civil Liberties have Civic responsibilities.

[eldog]

Can't we go to the ballot box.

:laugh: Like that will make a difference.

yeah, fixed it for ya.

you have been taken over by web surfing zombies, on their instant gratification joyride.

get on your bike and enjoy it while you can, it’s only a matter of time, before they are deemed unhealthy or too dangerous, by the masses.:facepalm:

[husaberg]

So can they or can't they enter a private dwellinghouse or marae?

As they could have previously anyway.
What makes me laugh is you seem to think they couldn't before hand
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/independent/search-and-surveillance-act/user_uploads/07-warrantless-powers.pdf
here is the dumbed down version.
https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-30-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/

The police can enter your place without a warrant in the following situations:

Making an arrest – The police can come into your place to search for you and arrest you if they've got reasonable grounds to suspect you've committed an offence that's punishable by a prison term. To be able to use this power the police have to have reasonable grounds to believe you're at the place at that time and that if they don't enter straightaway either you'll leave or you'll interfere with evidence. They can also enter to arrest you if there's an arrest warrant out for you or if you've escaped from prison.

Preventing crimes – The police can enter to stop a criminal offence being committed that's likely to cause someone to be injured, or serious damage to or serious loss of any property.
Seizing evidence – The police can enter your place if they've arrested you (whether at your place or somewhere else) and they've got reasonable grounds to believe there's evidence at your place that will be destroyed or interfered with if they wait to get a warrant from a court. Also, if they think there's evidence of a serious crime (one punishable by a jail term of 14 years or more, like rape or aggravated robbery), they can enter to seize it whether they've arrested you or not.
Emergencies – The police can enter when there's an emergency threatening somebody's life or safety.
Enforcing specific laws – A number of Acts allow the police or other officials to enter property without a warrant in order to enforce that particular Act, including the Land Transport Act 1998 (see the chapter “Driving and traffic law”), the Immigration Act 2009, and the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
whilst i am sure you will revel in your latest attempts to fool people into thinking you know what you talking about, you very clearly cant not read or understand acts of law.
any more than understand trial on drugs or 911.
Your own misplaced paranoia is not evidence of wrongdoing.
the act is very explicit in that it relate to certain conditions not all the time anytime they want to search casedakatman.

[Katman]

As they could have previously anyway.
What makes me laugh is you seem to think they couldn't before hand
https://consultations.justice.govt.nz/independent/search-and-surveillance-act/user_uploads/07-warrantless-powers.pdf
here is the dumbed down version.
https://communitylaw.org.nz/community-law-manual/chapter-30-police-powers/entry-powers-when-the-police-can-come-into-your-home/entry-without-a-warrant-to-prevent-or-investigate-crimes/

whilst i am sure you will revel in your latest attempts to fool people into thinking you know what you talking about, you very clearly cant not read or understand acts of law.
any more than understand trial on drugs or 911.
Your own misplaced paranoia is not evidence of wrongdoing.
the ac is vry explicit in that it relate to certain conditions not all the time anytime they want to search casedakatman.

Yes, I'm well aware that they could already.

I've been in a situation where they've marched into a house saying they could smell cannabis but then fail to find anything of the sort.

So yes, I've seen first hand just how far the NZ police will stretch the law.

[pritch]

Yes, I'm well aware that they could already.

I've been in a situation where they've marched into a house saying they could smell cannabis but then fail to find anything of the sort.


Yes, I don't think husaberg's list was exhaustive. It's my understanding that as well as having cause to suspect an offence against the drugs act there is a similar provision in the Firearms Act.

[husaberg]

Yes, I'm well aware that they could already.

I've been in a situation where they've marched into a house saying they could smell cannabis but then fail to find anything of the sort.

So yes, I've seen first hand just how far the NZ police will stretch the law.
Really because reading your posts makes it clear you were pretty confused
So what has changed now then
if you knew they already had the rights, if they believed a crime was being committed or evidence was likely to be destroyed or a life endangered
why do you suddenly act like you have had some sort of liberties have been suddenly taken from you with this act then?

[jasonu]

Really because reading your posts makes it clear you were pretty confused
So what has changed now then
if you knew they already had the rights, if they believed a crime was being committed or evidence was likely to be destroyed or a life endangered
why do you suddenly act like you have had some sort of liberties have been suddenly taken from you with this act then?

If you are correct and nothing has changed then why do you think they went to the trouble of rushing this new bill through?

[pete376403]

If you are correct and nothing has changed then why do you think they went to the trouble of rushing this new bill through?

Possibly they wanted the bits relating to Covid / lockdown levels to be in in place as soon as possible? And the act has to be as comprehensive as possible to prevent or at least slowdown the weasel lawyers who will use any unclear wording to get their clients off charges? (it's not as though there hasn't been plenty of that in the past) Personally I'm pretty happy that the moves the govt has made over the past 6 weeks or so has lessened the chances of me being infected, and possibly dying, because some bozo insisted his right to KFC was more important than my health and safety.

[husaberg]

If you are correct and nothing has changed then why do you think they went to the trouble of rushing this new bill through?
its not a question of if i gave the examples of previous acts and how the law is interpreted already.
I am sure it was added as they had very little laws about intentionally risking public health. but as these were not designed to stop a disease.
So in order not to having avoid idiots spreading the disease. whilst claiming the law doesn't apply to spreading a disease. it seems there made it clearer.
Because It takes longer to hear a case and its appeals than it does to simply make the law clearer.
I would suspect the law was more aimed at drug dealer and gangs, Who always claim their rights are being infringed in order to carry on their criminal activity.
Oddly they always seem to worry about their rights much more than non criminals do............:whistle:

[jasonu]

its not a question of if i gave the examples of previous acts and how the law is interpreted already.
I am sure it was added as they had very little laws about intentionally risking public health. but as these were not desined to stop a disease.
So in order not to having avoid idiots spreading the disease. whilst claiming the law doesn't apply to spreading a disease. it seems there made it clearer.
Because It takes longer to hear a case and its appeals than it does to simply make the law clearer.
I would suspect the law was more aimed at drug dealer and gangs, Who always claim their rights are being infringed in order to carry on their criminal activity.
Oddly they always seem to worry about their rights much more than non criminals do............:whistle:

I saw there is a 90 day review in the new rules. How much of these new rules do you think will be let go after this is all done?

[husaberg]

I saw there is a 90 day review in the new rules. How much of these new rules do you think will be let go after this is all done?

Who cares, its clear to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, that its not some Trojan horse, like Stevo was trying to make it out to be.
But feel free to ignore that so you can keep pushing your own agenda.......

where were you on this one.........
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/69457983/devil-is-in-the-detail-for-undercover-cops-in-red-devils-case

[R650R]

get on your bike and enjoy it while you can, it’s only a matter of time, before they are deemed unhealthy or too dangerous, by the masses.:facepalm:

I’m loathe to say it lest some leftie beggar journalist is trolling here for news likevthey do across all forums... but we should prepare ourselves to counter that which will come.

From day one of the lockdown and all this over sanitising nonsense that even included fuel bowsers, I thought how long before they realise bike jackets are giant Petri dishes collecting billions of bacteria/viruses across large swathes of the country, traversing multiple regions at speed running shouldets with loose women at every pub stop lol....

All this tripping over cleaner air and less hospital admissions makes our enjoyment of bikes a prime target. Never mind the massive symbol of freedom and free expression that motorcycling embodies, the communists sure don’t like that.

Their running scared though, I could not believe there was no single tax increase in the budget to pay for this war chest of expenditure... oh well I guess theyvrealised it’s election time soon.

Re all the new powers, there was a great radio interview post 911 with an elderly German women who survived nazi Germany. She could not believe the Americans giving away all their rights under the new laws, it was the frog boiling in the pot dejavu for her...

[Ulsterkiwi]

Can't we?

Even using the lowest estimated numbers, the NZ Populace outmans and out-guns the NZ Police and NZDF by a comfortable 4-1 for Semi-autos and if you include all firearm types - it's more like 20-1.

Or we can go to the ballot box.

It worries me when people say things like this.
You would happily take on an LAV with its complement of trained soldiers and it’s chain gun with 20 blokes from the pub with their duck guns?
20 lads who go possum hunting are a match for a team of AOS officers?
Aside from that, I would suggest we would do a huge disservice to many serving police officers and defence force personnel to assume they would be complicit with some kind of tyrannical government clampdown.
There are cowboys and nut jobs everywhere, the police and defence are no exception. Nor are the general rabbit hunting population it would seem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheDemonLord]

It worries me when people say things like this.

Why? We are ruled by Consent - at any moment in time, we (the populace) can revoke that consent, the ultimate arbiter of that is force.

This is not to say I want it to happen, only that it is the ultimate end and both parties (the Government and the Populace) should always be cognizant of that fact.


You would happily take on an LAV with its complement of trained soldiers and it’s chain gun with 20 blokes from the pub with their duck guns?
20 lads who go possum hunting are a match for a team of AOS officers?
Aside from that, I would suggest we would do a huge disservice to many serving police officers and defence force personnel to assume they would be complicit with some kind of tyrannical government clampdown.
There are cowboys and nut jobs everywhere, the police and defence are no exception. Nor are the general rabbit hunting population it would seem.

Would I want to take on a LAV? Not particularly - but let's play a hypothetical game for a moment (because it's interesting) - There's 105 LAVs in NZ - so that's just over 2 for each major population centre (43 cities with more than 10,000 people) - sure, big threat, but they can't be everywhere at once - so the '20 blokes from the Pub and their Duck Guns' - simply have to be where the LAVs aren't, which Given NZ's landscape isn't particularly difficult to do. Now, in those 43 cities (using easy numbers and assuming an equal distribution and no overlap) its not 20 blokes from the Pub, it's more like 5,000 - so 2 LAVs, with 20 Soldiers inside of them, plus the AOS vs 5,000 people.

Then you look at your logistics and supply train - dispersed throughout NZ means that any spare parts, fuel, Ammunition etc. has to travel a reasonable distance by road.

'but what about using the Hercules and the Iroquis to move it via airfield and then heli-lift it into situ' - Aircraft engines are generally known to be rather sensitive to being shot at - and the Perimeters of most NZ Air Bases are such that a reasonably competent marksman could take pot-shots, from cover at the assets.

The fundamental problem IMO is that NZ doesn't have a Combat air-wing (so no Close Air Support, No Bombing), doesn't have Cruise Missile or guided missiles/drone capability, nor does it have MBTs -

TL;DR - the NZDF, as competent and as professional as they are, don't have anything with a big enough bang that would enable them to take on the entire country, or even just the entire contingent of Firearm owners.

[Ixion]

One word. IED. Improvised Explosive Device. Easily within the capabilities of a Kiwi Resistance, and easy take out a LAV. The whole might of the US military can't keep things down in Afghanistan, NZDF wouldn't have a show.

Sent a shiver down my spine when our dictatrix ( yes that is a word, google it ). gloated at the beginning of the lockdown that she had 120 troops ready to shoot down any Kiwis who disagreed with her. Only a small shiver though, because in that case it wouldn't be long before Kiwis started shootings back.

[pritch]

'but what about using the Hercules and the Iroquis to move it via airfield and then heli-lift it into situ'

You'll need a time machine as well. You'll need that to get the Iroquois.

[husaberg]

You'll need a time machine as well. You'll need that to get the Iroquois.

The C130 has a long history in AC form for coin crowd control

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-gMMQTt5-c
a hell of a lot more usefll than a Main battle tank
NZ has the ability to ask any of its friends for help if the right wing Pom imports get ideas above their station

[pete376403]

One word. IED. Improvised Explosive Device. Easily within the capabilities of a Kiwi Resistance, and easy take out a LAV. The whole might of the US military can't keep things down in Afghanistan, NZDF wouldn't have a show..

O f course there is a vast amount of ordnance available to Afghans with which to make these IEDs. What equivalents can be found readily available in New Zealand - several million match heads? BTW, havent seen you around here for a while. Keeping well?

[RDJ]

I would suggest we would do a huge disservice to many serving police officers to assume they would be complicit with some kind of tyrannical government clampdown.

Newsflash: they've already done that 2 years in a row.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Newsflash: they've already done that 2 years in a row.

We are living under a tyrannical government clampdown supported by the NZDF and the Police? Glad you told me, I hadn't noticed. Silly me.




Why? We are ruled by Consent - at any moment in time, we (the populace) can revoke that consent, the ultimate arbiter of that is force.

This is not to say I want it to happen, only that it is the ultimate end and both parties (the Government and the Populace) should always be cognizant of that fact.



Would I want to take on a LAV? Not particularly - but let's play a hypothetical game for a moment (because it's interesting) - There's 105 LAVs in NZ - so that's just over 2 for each major population centre (43 cities with more than 10,000 people) - sure, big threat, but they can't be everywhere at once - so the '20 blokes from the Pub and their Duck Guns' - simply have to be where the LAVs aren't, which Given NZ's landscape isn't particularly difficult to do. Now, in those 43 cities (using easy numbers and assuming an equal distribution and no overlap) its not 20 blokes from the Pub, it's more like 5,000 - so 2 LAVs, with 20 Soldiers inside of them, plus the AOS vs 5,000 people.

Then you look at your logistics and supply train - dispersed throughout NZ means that any spare parts, fuel, Ammunition etc. has to travel a reasonable distance by road.

'but what about using the Hercules and the Iroquis to move it via airfield and then heli-lift it into situ' - Aircraft engines are generally known to be rather sensitive to being shot at - and the Perimeters of most NZ Air Bases are such that a reasonably competent marksman could take pot-shots, from cover at the assets.

The fundamental problem IMO is that NZ doesn't have a Combat air-wing (so no Close Air Support, No Bombing), doesn't have Cruise Missile or guided missiles/drone capability, nor does it have MBTs -

TL;DR - the NZDF, as competent and as professional as they are, don't have anything with a big enough bang that would enable them to take on the entire country, or even just the entire contingent of Firearm owners.


well, so long as you have thought it through then its alright then.



One word. IED. Improvised Explosive Device. Easily within the capabilities of a Kiwi Resistance, and easy take out a LAV. The whole might of the US military can't keep things down in Afghanistan, NZDF wouldn't have a show.

Sent a shiver down my spine when our dictatrix ( yes that is a word, google it ). gloated at the beginning of the lockdown that she had 120 troops ready to shoot down any Kiwis who disagreed with her. Only a small shiver though, because in that case it wouldn't be long before Kiwis started shootings back.

As above, clearly you have put some thought into it all and are way ahead with your planning, excellent.

I did Google as you directed me to. Who knew! Here was me thinking it was the whole electoral system that a plebiscite supported put her there. All the clever people who pointed out she was only in power because Winston kept her there and she had to keep him happy must have been wrong eh. She doesn't depend on him to keep her in power, she is a dictator (feminine form of course) with absolute ability to do what she wants when she wants with absolutely no checks and balances to challenge her. The jackbooted forces of the state are ready to trample over us at a moments notice to guarantee her every whim. Right, where do I sign up for my duck gun and IED?

[RDJ]

Ulsterkiwi - so you noticed not the repeated threats from senior police and Nash against firearms owners, as the confiscation proceeded, while holding all law abiding owners responsible for the Tarrant butchery (tho' only government officers had let him into NZ and licensed him without proper vetting).

Nor did you see the news of 12 armed police raiding a family man's home at dinner time (while seemingly unable to control gangs). Guess you also missed police officers chasing people off beaches and parks, while facilitating racist roadblocks.

And the policing of the first ?9 ?10 days of lockdown rules was done with the police knowing it was ultra vires.

Guess your attention was elsewhere.

[husaberg]

Ulsterkiwi - so you noticed not the repeated threats from senior police and Nash against firearms owners, as the confiscation proceeded, while holding all law abiding owners responsible for the Tarrant butchery (tho' only government officers had let him into NZ and licensed him without proper vetting).

Nor did you see the news of 12 armed police raiding a family man's home at dinner time (while seemingly unable to control gangs). Guess you also missed police officers chasing people off beaches and parks, while facilitating racist roadblocks.

And the policing of the first ?9 ?10 days of lockdown rules was done with the police knowing it was ultra vires.

Guess your attention was elsewhere.

If those gun owners are so law abiding, how come people keep going on how the laws a failure as so of those so called law abiding gun licence holders haven't proved to be law abiding and obeyed the law and handed in their ilegal firearms.
i guess for gun owner law abiding is rather subjective.
In case you never noticed the law changes were and are supported by the majority of Kiwis and had 99% support by the political parties........ you dont get more democratic than that.

[R650R]

Some interesting points raised above ... however the favourite tools of communist takeovers are starvation and a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
We’ve already had our “Krystalnicght” (night of broken glass) moment in NZ history when the police were sent to raid Polynesian “overstayers”....
So the same thing in modern times will be to abduct under the cover of darkness potential leaders and trouble makers for “Covid” violations and be taken to a “health” camp.
The other tool is to use lockdowns to cripple supply chains and industry so there is little food available or you can’t afford to buy or travel to get it. They’ve just had a mini practice run at this...

Watch Holodor, Harvest of Despair on YouTube to see how the bolsheviks easily murdered millions with the above tools by exporting their grain instead of feeding their own.

The good thing is the first lockdown has shown who are the stasi that can’t be trusted in your own local street. The ones that disobeyed are the ones you can safely trade food and tools with once we go full East German.....

[Katman]

In case you never noticed the law changes were and are supported by the majority of Kiwis.....

According to one Colmar Brunton poll conducted less than a month after the shooting.

[TheDemonLord]

The C130 has a long history in AC form for coin crowd control
a hell of a lot more usefll than a Main battle tank
NZ has the ability to ask any of its friends for help if the right wing Pom imports get ideas above their station

Yes, I do love the AC-130, however comparing the 2 is like comparing your mates Holden Commodore with a V8 Supercar - they may look the same, but they are very much different.

[TheDemonLord]

You'll need a time machine as well. You'll need that to get the Iroquois.

Oops! Fair comment - although the over-arching point of 'Helicopter engines don't like being shot at' is still valid.

[husaberg]

According to one Colmar Brunton poll conducted less than a month after the shooting.

Did you miss the MP's from "ALL POLITICAL PARTIES that had voting rights to represent the people (other than one dickheaded no hope sycophant from the one mp ACT party) voting for the initial gun controls into law?
you cant have missed it as you edited out of the post you replied to
If there was widespread support against the gun laws why is it there is no polls saying it was not supported then ?
On one hand, i have a poll conducted with scientific methods by a professional organisation on the other hand you have nothing........
Where is the evidence of widespread support, the protests, the petitions the call for a referendum. the political party with widespread support getting behind this movement.
i will give you a hint.
They had no support past some minority firearm owners and some of their spouses. Plus it seems an internet troll conspiracy theorist from Taupo.
come back when you have some evidence of something other than you inability to use rational thought processes.

i am picking you also chose to ignore the UMR poll.
A UMR survey of New Zealanders found 70 per cent supported strengthening the gun laws, 16 per cent opposed and 14 per cent were neutral or unsure...........

[TheDemonLord]

well, so long as you have thought it through then its alright then

It's not a case of thought it through - I can't think of many governments that have survived a full-scale civil revolt, even with a firepower advantage, whereas I can think of many Governments that have been toppled by a civillian uprising.

This isn't even a critique or blemish on the NZDF.

Now, would I be as calm and collected if I had bushmaster 20mm shells exploding meters away from me, probably not. I'd also be rather annoyed and upset at being seriously injured and or killed should that happen, I might even question if it was worth it as I'm bleeding to death.

The over-arching point however still stands that as a populace, we are governed by Consent and we can, at any moment, revoke that consent. It is the ultimate check and balance to offset the tendancy of Governments to turn towards Tyranny.

[TheDemonLord]

If those gun owners are so law abiding, how come people keep going on how the laws a failure as so of those so called law abiding gun licence holders haven't proved to be law abiding and obeyed the law and handed in their ilegal firearms.
i guess for gun owner law abiding is rather subjective.
In case you never noticed the law changes were and are supported by the majority of Kiwis and had 99% support by the political parties........ you dont get more democratic than that.

Keep telling yourself that, still won't change the fact that the Firearm community choose overwhelmingly to engage in a mass act of Civil Disobedience and not comply with the new laws. Best case scenario for the government was that only 30% were handed in.

I hope that makes you feel safer.

[mashman]

Some interesting points raised above ... however the favourite tools of communist takeovers are starvation and a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
We’ve already had our “Krystalnicght” (night of broken glass) moment in NZ history when the police were sent to raid Polynesian “overstayers”....
So the same thing in modern times will be to abduct under the cover of darkness potential leaders and trouble makers for “Covid” violations and be taken to a “health” camp.
The other tool is to use lockdowns to cripple supply chains and industry so there is little food available or you can’t afford to buy or travel to get it. They’ve just had a mini practice run at this...

Watch Holodor, Harvest of Despair on YouTube to see how the bolsheviks easily murdered millions with the above tools by exporting their grain instead of feeding their own.

The good thing is the first lockdown has shown who are the stasi that can’t be trusted in your own local street. The ones that disobeyed are the ones you can safely trade food and tools with once we go full East German.....

Whereas the capitalist examples of hundreds/thousands of years of global slavery that left India and Africa (who only regained their soveriengty within the last century, if you can call it regained), to mention a couple, as resource raped landscapes with resources still controlled and exported to the detriment of hundreds of millions. That Common-Wealth was built on the genocide and coercion of entire populations being raped and murdered and starved and enslaved for hundreds of thousands of years... but no, communism :killingme...........

Oh the satire of it all. Capitalist tyranny (king, church, illuminati, the one leg face slapping salmon chums) wipes out and enslaves everything that crosses its path for centuries (exceptionally well documented), but it was the communists that were the problem because they had to export in order to be able to keep their economy going... especially after so many had died during the war and so on. Satire at its finest... and alive and well in your living room.

Look what they did, look what they did, that's how we would be :facepalm:

[TheDemonLord]

Whereas the capitalist examples of hundreds/thousands of years of global slavery that left India and Africa (who only regained their soveriengty within the last century, if you can call it regained), to mention a couple, as resource raped landscapes with resources still controlled and exported to the detriment of hundreds of millions. That Common-Wealth was built on the genocide and coercion of entire populations being raped and murdered and starved and enslaved for hundreds of thousands of years... but no, communism :killingme...........

India and Africa who themselves happily engaged in Slavery at the expense of rival countries, regions and tribes, yes?

But hey - by all means, go back to Tribal warfare and ritualistic killings.


Oh the satire of it all. Capitalist tyranny (king, church, illuminati, the one leg face slapping salmon chums) wipes out and enslaves everything that crosses its path for centuries (exceptionally well documented), but it was the communists that were the problem because they had to export in order to be able to keep their economy going... especially after so many had died during the war and so on. Satire at its finest... and alive and well in your living room.

Look what they did, look what they did, that's how we would be :facepalm:

And where Capitalism took hold, despite the wiping-out and enslaving (as you claim) - the Countries Flourished and thrived.
Where Communism too hold, with no less wiping-out and enslaving (that you omit) - the Countries failed.

[RDJ]

If those gun owners are so law abiding, how come people keep going on how the laws a failure as so of those so called law abiding gun licence holders haven't proved to be law abiding and obeyed the law and handed in their ilegal firearms.
i guess for gun owner law abiding is rather subjective.
In case you never noticed the law changes were and are supported by the majority of Kiwis and had 99% support by the political parties........ you dont get more democratic than that.

Let's go Godwin. When Hitler's administration democratically passed a law requiring Jewish people to wear a yellow star, "you couldn't get more democratic than that", by your standards. Was that a law that should have been abided by?

Also, The German Enabling Act of 1933 established the power of the government to pass law by decree, bypassing the approval of parliament. Sound familiar?

[husaberg]

Let's go Godwin. When Hitler's administration democratically passed a law requiring Jewish people to wear a yellow star, "you couldn't get more democratic than that", by your standards. Was that a law that should have been abided by?

Also, The German Enabling Act of 1933 established the power of the government to pass law by decree, bypassing the approval of parliament. Sound familiar?

the German government wasnt exactly known for its democracy let alone the fact you cant counter a single thing i said hence your need to go goodwin.
Get back to me when you can counter the points i made......

let alone the fact that the biggest gun lobby group in nZ has less than 16,000 members.
Yet there are 250,000 fire arm owners in NZ.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Ulsterkiwi - so you noticed not the repeated threats from senior police and Nash against firearms owners, as the confiscation proceeded, while holding all law abiding owners responsible for the Tarrant butchery (tho' only government officers had let him into NZ and licensed him without proper vetting).

Nor did you see the news of 12 armed police raiding a family man's home at dinner time (while seemingly unable to control gangs). Guess you also missed police officers chasing people off beaches and parks, while facilitating racist roadblocks.

And the policing of the first ?9 ?10 days of lockdown rules was done with the police knowing it was ultra vires.

Guess your attention was elsewhere.

The firearms laws needed to change. I fully support civilian ownership of firearms for hunting, recreation and competition. Owned a few myself. That ownership that needs to be regulated and controlled for the greater good. Clearly a system that allowed "that" guy to become a licenced owner is broken. I also think it is really hard to justify the ease with which members of the public could obtain firearms only one step away from full military spec (fully automatic). The rules were farcical, no open pistol grip and magazine capacity reduction?
The guy who inflicted all that harm was out to do harm no matter what, I accept that. Why should we make it easy for him and others like him? Do I need to bring up the relatively unfettered access to firearms in the USA to show how that can pan out?

Were the owners of, up to then, legal firearms to blame for Tarrants crimes? Absolutely not. Did they bear the brunt of the consequences of the efforts to stop it happening again? Absolutely. When a line is drawn, someone will always miss out, always. I could draw comparisons to many situations where this has happened, some more appropriate than others. I think you are smart enough that I do not have to do that. I think you are smart enough to realise that reform had to happen after those events.
Did they get it perfectly right? No. Are the police sometimes cack handed? yes. Will that ever change? No.
I do not say that to dismiss the seriousness of the issue, rather to say it might be naive to think the police will always get things right any more than the writing of the laws they are supposed to enforce.
This is not a problem unique to New Zealand, every country that aspires to democratic government struggles with balance.

Should the police have supported the roadblocks in Northland and East Cape? Honestly, I don't know. I think the fear of what might be that was building in those communities was justified. Hone took advantage, that is what people like Hone do. Arresting those people, most of whom I believe were trying to protect their vulnerable communities would only have fueled a fire that is already burning.

I do not know all the ins and outs of the legal underpinning for the police powers in lockdown. Perhaps they were working on legal advice from crown law or their own counsel? Lawyers, they give opinions like the rest of us. Sometimes they get it wrong.

I am sorry if this frustrates you but I do not see any of the above or indeed the total as a concerted effort to force an oppressive regime upon us, installed with the support of the police and military.

I am not ignorant of historical precedent around the globe, however NZ does not have any of the requisite historical baggage which opened up those possibilities elsewhere. The country is not reeling from punitive measures handed out because of our having a leading role in a global conflict, we do not have a history of absolute power sitting with a totalitarian monarch, our political parties sit closer to the centre than anything else. We are a young country, making plenty of mistakes but I do not believe we are destined to follow those made by other parts of the world.
Of course, like other humans, I could be wrong.

[Ulsterkiwi]

It's not a case of thought it through - I can't think of many governments that have survived a full-scale civil revolt, even with a firepower advantage, whereas I can think of many Governments that have been toppled by a civillian uprising.

This isn't even a critique or blemish on the NZDF.

Now, would I be as calm and collected if I had bushmaster 20mm shells exploding meters away from me, probably not. I'd also be rather annoyed and upset at being seriously injured and or killed should that happen, I might even question if it was worth it as I'm bleeding to death.

The over-arching point however still stands that as a populace, we are governed by Consent and we can, at any moment, revoke that consent. It is the ultimate check and balance to offset the tendancy of Governments to turn towards Tyranny.

When you think of those regimes that were toppled, do you think of countries with a system of government, a statute book, a police force, a military or a history that resembles New Zealand? If you do, I would like to know which countries we are talking about.
I do know a wee bit about civil unrest and political conflict/violence (hint: look at my screen name). It seems to me a bit excessive to be thinking we are in that kind of territory.

[FJRider]

It's not a case of thought it through - I can't think of many governments that have survived a full-scale civil revolt, even with a firepower advantage, whereas I can think of many Governments that have been toppled by a civillian uprising.

Firepower and numbers advantage only works if there was adequate training ... to give the ability to use that firepower and numbers to their advantage.

But ... if the civilians involved are trained to use the weapons available to them ... to their advantage ... they could easily gain the advantage.

Those that can't believe that ... remember Vietnam ... :shutup:


This isn't even a critique or blemish on the NZDF.

Good to hear ... For the NZ defense Forces ... any training for local "Crowd Control" was fun at the time, and none of us ever hoped we would ever do it for real (well ... OK .. a few did). We did Base security around the places we were stationed ... and we had to be serious about it.


Now, would I be as calm and collected if I had bushmaster 20mm shells exploding meters away from me, probably not. I'd also be rather annoyed and upset at being seriously injured and or killed should that happen, I might even question if it was worth it as I'm bleeding to death.

I've been on the receiving end of a 50 cal' machine gun ... from a yank that had got himself lost. At the time I thought my shirt and fly buttons were keeping me too far off the ground. Annoyed and upset ... was AFTER the shooting stopped ... :sweatdrop


The over-arching point however still stands that as a populace, we are governed by Consent and we can, at any moment, revoke that consent. It is the ultimate check and balance to offset the tendancy of Governments to turn towards Tyranny.

Not quite "At any moment" ... due process has to be followed. Otherwise ANY action (By civilians or Military ... Armed or otherwise) taken against Elected Government or it's staff ... by any serving Military units or Police ... will be not legal. Do you not recall the events and actions taken after the election results in Fiji ... quite a number of years ago ???

WORLD opinion has a major influence on sanctions placed on countries that have An "irregular" change of Government ...

[FJRider]

The firearms laws needed to change. I fully support civilian ownership of firearms for hunting, recreation and competition. Owned a few myself.

Personally ... I've never regarded it as "sport" to shoot Deer (or any wild Game) from much more than a hundred meters or so.

Question ... what type of shooting activity comes under the "Recreation" heading ... ??

[Ulsterkiwi]

Personally ... I've never regarded it as "sport" to shoot Deer (or any wild Game) from much more than a hundred meters or so.

Question ... what type of shooting activity comes under the "Recreation" heading ... ??

hunting is for food or pest control, not sport

recreation is target shooting, there is some satisfaction in hitting a moving target or one at some distance away. My personal favourite was targets 800m away using rifles with open sights.

competition is when you get...competitive.....about the recreational stuff

[TheDemonLord]

When you think of those regimes that were toppled, do you think of countries with a system of government, a statute book, a police force, a military or a history that resembles New Zealand? If you do, I would like to know which countries we are talking about.

Now, I'll preface this with a statement that you'll not find an exact mirror image of NZ, except in NZ. I'll also preface that all the major Revolutions that I can think of had one or more critical failures or causes of discontent that was the catalyst for action. I'm also not including Coup D'etat - since they tend to be instigated by the Military.

There's the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba etc. (most of the latter were still colonies with a westernised form of government and rule of law at the time of the revolution if memory serves)


I do know a wee bit about civil unrest and political conflict/violence (hint: look at my screen name). It seems to me a bit excessive to be thinking we are in that kind of territory.

I don't think we are there - but we are closer than we were and closer than I'd like to be.

By my reading of history, it'd take only 2-3 more 'issues' that had widespread impact to light the fuse.

Ireland and the Troubles though I think has one factor that separates it from most other political conflict - rather than the typical scenario of the 'the people' rising up against 'the government' - there were 2 groups of 'the people' that were rising up against each other (now, I'll beg your forgiveness for a very brief and massively oversimplified statement on the troubles - as much as I'm known for typing novellas on here, even my fingers would tire if I had to go into much detail(

[TheDemonLord]

Firepower and numbers advantage only works if there was adequate training ... to give the ability to use that firepower and numbers to their advantage.

But ... if the civilians involved are trained to use the weapons available to them ... to their advantage ... they could easily gain the advantage.

Those that can't believe that ... remember Vietnam ... :shutup:



Good to hear ... For the NZ defense Forces ... any training for local "Crowd Control" was fun at the time, and none of us ever hoped we would ever do it for real (well ... OK .. a few did). We did Base security around the places we were stationed ... and we had to be serious about it.



I've been on the receiving end of a 50 cal' machine gun ... from a yank that had got himself lost. At the time I thought my shirt and fly buttons were keeping me too far off the ground. Annoyed and upset ... was AFTER the shooting stopped ... :sweatdrop



Not quite "At any moment" ... due process has to be followed. Otherwise ANY action (By civilians or Military ... Armed or otherwise) taken against Elected Government or it's staff ... by any serving Military units or Police ... will be not legal. Do you not recall the events and actions taken after the election results in Fiji ... quite a number of years ago ???

WORLD opinion has a major influence on sanctions placed on countries that have An "irregular" change of Government ...

Fair Points, all.

[TheDemonLord]

The firearms laws needed to change. I fully support civilian ownership of firearms for hunting, recreation and competition. Owned a few myself. That ownership that needs to be regulated and controlled for the greater good. Clearly a system that allowed "that" guy to become a licenced owner is broken. I also think it is really hard to justify the ease with which members of the public could obtain firearms only one step away from full military spec (fully automatic). The rules were farcical, no open pistol grip and magazine capacity reduction?
The guy who inflicted all that harm was out to do harm no matter what, I accept that. Why should we make it easy for him and others like him? Do I need to bring up the relatively unfettered access to firearms in the USA to show how that can pan out?

Were the owners of, up to then, legal firearms to blame for Tarrants crimes? Absolutely not. Did they bear the brunt of the consequences of the efforts to stop it happening again? Absolutely. When a line is drawn, someone will always miss out, always. I could draw comparisons to many situations where this has happened, some more appropriate than others. I think you are smart enough that I do not have to do that. I think you are smart enough to realise that reform had to happen after those events.
Did they get it perfectly right? No. Are the police sometimes cack handed? yes. Will that ever change? No.
I do not say that to dismiss the seriousness of the issue, rather to say it might be naive to think the police will always get things right any more than the writing of the laws they are supposed to enforce.
This is not a problem unique to New Zealand, every country that aspires to democratic government struggles with balance.

Did the laws need a change - sure. First thing that should have been done was to reclassify high-capacity detachable magazines that were patterned for a semi-auto reciever as requiring an E-Cat licence. You'd have some people who now had illegal magazines (bolt-actions in .223 and .308 that came with 20 round magazines for example) - so for those people you could do a simple swap - bring in your 20 round Magazine, get 2 x 10 round magazines. People would have grumped - but there'd by a lot more acceptance.

Then, you sit down with the Firearm owners and discuss what changes would and wouldn't work - I say this for 2 reasons - firstly most Firearm owners know they are only 1 tragedy away from having their rights stripped (as in this case) and so have a vested interest in making the system work and secondly, the Auditor General's report - pretty much confirmed everything Firearm owners had said from day 0 - so maybe from that we can presume that they may know a thing or 2 about Firearms.

Now, you could have grandfathered all the currently legally owned Semi-Autos, you could have introduced a new licence type (Cat-A+) that allowed ownership of Semi-Autos but with an increase in security and vetting, a halfway house between the current A-Cat and previous E-Cat licence, there were a myriad of options.

Some of the things that for me really irk me on this change are:

1: They did away with the E-Cat system - there was literally no reason to touch it, to my knowledge, there has never been a serious crime committed by a lawfully owned E-Cat rifle.
2: Objectively, the Police did not follow the rules when vetting the Terrorist, Online forums is not sufficient for a Character reference.
3: The speed at which he gained the licence upon entering the country is suspect.
4: Had the Police done any background checks to Australia, they would have come across information that would have been a cause for denying the application, as a recent migrant, one would think this would be standard to do.
5: It is clear that the tragedy was used to railroad through the most restrictive and vindictive law changes they could muster that appears to have been drafted well before the event.

I do not think the Government or the Police acted in Good Faith with the Law changes, I do not like the fact that the entire blame and punishment was placed on the shoulders of those who had nothing to do with the crime, whereas the Police and Immigration NZ got off scot-free.

I do, however, like the fact that given the best-case scenario for the Government, less than 30% were handed in.

[FJRider]

Some of the things that for me really irk me on this change are:

1: They did away with the E-Cat system - there was literally no reason to touch it, to my knowledge, there has never been a serious crime committed by a lawfully owned E-Cat rifle.
2: Objectively, the Police did not follow the rules when vetting the Terrorist, Online forums is not sufficient for a Character reference.
3: The speed at which he gained the licence upon entering the country is suspect.
4: Had the Police done any background checks to Australia, they would have come across information that would have been a cause for denying the application, as a recent migrant, one would think this would be standard to do.
5: It is clear that the tragedy was used to railroad through the most restrictive and vindictive law changes they could muster that appears to have been drafted well before the event.

1: The key word is "Lawfully" ... Labouring Governments have always had a bee in their bonnet about the military. It surprises me the Army still have rifles ... and are still allowed to use them. Although ... the empty brass casings are always carefully counted after a range shoot.
2: Lack of staffing and time ... apparently ... :shifty:
3: They had increased staff numbers ... apparently ... :shifty:
4: Lack of staff and time ... ??? :shifty:
5: The greatest fear of any Government (doing dodgy/questionable stuff) is an armed civilian populace ... :shifty:

Changes were planned ... but that event was reason enough to speed the process up somewhat. Labour electioneering at it's bet.



I do not think the Government or the Police acted in Good Faith with the Law changes, I do not like the fact that the entire blame and punishment was placed on the shoulders of those who had nothing to do with the crime, whereas the Police and Immigration NZ got off scot-free.

Police did not carry out the shooting ... but if due (and correct) processes were followed ... that shooting would not have happened. Licensed Firearms owners will always bear the brunt of any weapons related incident after effects ... they always have. And always will.


I do, however, like the fact that given the best-case scenario for the Government, less than 30% were handed in.

Those that know the truth about weapons numbers "In circulation" are the weapons owners. If they're smart ... they wont comment.

The Courts might get a little more serious with those found with the prohibited weapons though.

[RDJ]

When you think of those regimes that were toppled, do you think of countries with a system of government, a statute book, a police force, a military or a history that resembles New Zealand? If you do, I would like to know which countries we are talking about.
I do know a wee bit about civil unrest and political conflict/violence (hint: look at my screen name). It seems to me a bit excessive to be thinking we are in that kind of territory.

Well, unfortunately, there are a few analogous - but not of course identical - historical precedents.

(I note your screen name, and I learned my earliest i.e. post-graduation trauma medicine in that neighbourhood).

For example, consider the entity that was Yugoslavia. Its capital, Sarajevo, hosted the Olympics. Only a few years later, its citizens were running for their lives down Sniper Alley trying to get the basics of life... after ethnic and religious divisions spilled over into bloodshed and massacre. Or consider the Hutu-Tutsi genocide; all those villagers, the killers and the killed, used to be neighbours, literally not just figuratively. Also, unless unless it is not news to you, read up on the farm killings in South Africa...

For perhaps a less dramatic/simplistic example, consider that not that many decades ago, Beirut was known as "the Paris of the Middle East". Culture, civilisation, drama, fine architecture, it had it all. Then it slumped into the slagheap of history.

Do I think that New Zealand is going to follow any of those paths? no, I don't. However, having lived and worked in many countries which have that sort of recent history - also have a look at what Syria and Iraq were like only a few decades ago and compare that to what they are now - 'there is a great deal of ruin in a nation' as someone once said. And if things go bad, then they will tend to go like Hemingway is reported to have said when he was asked how he went bankrupt - "very slowly, and then suddenly".

If you or I had told people five years ago that the police would be chasing law-abiding citizens off beaches and pathways back in to their homes because the government said so, but there were no laws underpinning it; if you or I had told people that there would be a terrorist massacre of other immigrants by an immigrant but all New Zealand's firearm licence holders would be blamed; if you or I had told people five months ago that one half million previously-employed New Zealanders would suddenly either be unemployed or on wage subsidies and we are going to have a debt that our children will struggle to pay off - a decision mostly reached (in Ardern's own words) because the Prime Minister had heard from her friends in London that our country had to be locked down, 48 hours after she said that was a rumour - and that she and the government should be our only source of truth - we would have been laughed at.

[R650R]

!) char mini

[nerrrd]

If you or I had told people five years ago that the police would be chasing law-abiding citizens off beaches and pathways back in to their homes because the government said so, but there were no laws underpinning it;

The vast majority of people stayed home voluntarily, and turns out most could live with postponing their visits to the beach until such time as they could do so without drawing the attention of the police.


if you or I had told people that there would be a terrorist massacre of other immigrants by an immigrant but all New Zealand's firearm licence holders would be blamed;

Again, the vast majority of people see no reason to own or have no desire to own a firearm, so, just like motorcyclists,
firearms owners are (excuse the pun) an easy target when politicians feel the need to channel public outrage into law making so they can be seen to have done something about it. It sucks, but as a motorcyclist you knew that already.


if you or I had told people five months ago that one half million previously-employed New Zealanders would suddenly either be unemployed or on wage subsidies and we are going to have a debt that our children will struggle to pay off - a decision mostly reached (in Ardern's own words) because the Prime Minister had heard from her friends in London that our country had to be locked down, 48 hours after she said that was a rumour

Unemployment has been much higher in the past for sundry reasons, it’s not that much of a stretch. Arguably Working for Families is a wage subsidy too, they’ve been on that a lot longer. I guess a lot of other countries spoke to Jacinda’s friends at the same time?? Since they’ve all done pretty much the same thing, for the same reason. The economy is screwed worldwide, not just here. What worries me is nobody seems to be saying, hey, turns out screwing the worldwide economy was really easy, maybe we should build in some safeguards in case this all happens again instead of desperately trying to get back to exactly the way things were before...


and that she and the government should be our only source of truth

Well these days there’s this thing called the internet, so you can pretty much pick and choose whose truth you want to believe.


we would have been laughed at.

If you’d told them that one day everybody would have a phone they could carry in their pockets, they probably would have laughed at that too.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Well, unfortunately, there are a few analogous - but not of course identical - historical precedents.

(I note your screen name, and I learned my earliest i.e. post-graduation trauma medicine in that neighbourhood).

For example, consider the entity that was Yugoslavia. Its capital, Sarajevo, hosted the Olympics. Only a few years later, its citizens were running for their lives down Sniper Alley trying to get the basics of life... after ethnic and religious divisions spilled over into bloodshed and massacre. Or consider the Hutu-Tutsi genocide; all those villagers, the killers and the killed, used to be neighbours, literally not just figuratively. Also, unless unless it is not news to you, read up on the farm killings in South Africa...

For perhaps a less dramatic/simplistic example, consider that not that many decades ago, Beirut was known as "the Paris of the Middle East". Culture, civilisation, drama, fine architecture, it had it all. Then it slumped into the slagheap of history.

Do I think that New Zealand is going to follow any of those paths? no, I don't. However, having lived and worked in many countries which have that sort of recent history - also have a look at what Syria and Iraq were like only a few decades ago and compare that to what they are now - 'there is a great deal of ruin in a nation' as someone once said. And if things go bad, then they will tend to go like Hemingway is reported to have said when he was asked how he went bankrupt - "very slowly, and then suddenly".

If you or I had told people five years ago that the police would be chasing law-abiding citizens off beaches and pathways back in to their homes because the government said so, but there were no laws underpinning it; if you or I had told people that there would be a terrorist massacre of other immigrants by an immigrant but all New Zealand's firearm licence holders would be blamed; if you or I had told people five months ago that one half million previously-employed New Zealanders would suddenly either be unemployed or on wage subsidies and we are going to have a debt that our children will struggle to pay off - a decision mostly reached (in Ardern's own words) because the Prime Minister had heard from her friends in London that our country had to be locked down, 48 hours after she said that was a rumour - and that she and the government should be our only source of truth - we would have been laughed at.

Well if you learned how to repair the damage caused by gunshot wounds in the A&E unit of the RVH you will probably be familiar with at least some of the history. You allude to some very striking historical examples, terrible stories whose lessons should not be ignored, I cannot argue with you there. Are they not all however linked to some very long running and deeply seated causes of resentment? Some ethnic, tribal or other division which bubbled away under the surface, awaiting that last wee bit to make things boil over? (I came dangerously close to mixing some metaphors there, I hope you appreciate my self control) I am not so sure NZ is in that place. The issues we are presently having are not really a question of race or creed are they but a concern about government overreach. Do we need to be careful? Absolutely! Are we on the precipice? Nope, not even close.

I spoke to a Police officer of some experience about 6 months before the 15th March shootings. I commented on the relaxed approach to firearms in NZ. Yes, he said, lots of people will have to die before that changes. Does that make him a conspirator?
I think it is unfair to say legitimate firearm owners were blamed for the tragedy. Did they lose out in the backlash? I already stated that was the case. That is not the same as blame.I think TDL is correct, something is wrong that noone in the system was ever held to account for the killer being enabled to do what he did. Perhaps an inquiry down the line will remedy that? Even if that happens, what need is there for civilians to have military spec firearms capable of cyclic rates of hundreds of rounds per minute? Is the possum problem that bad?

COVID has changed the whole world. NZ has gotten off lightly. Was the response perfect? By no objective measure could you say yes. That said I am glad I am here in the country I now call home, not back where I grew up because the leadership here has been of a very high standard and the efforts of the nation have been superb.
You have your chance in a couple of months to have your say if the PM warrants the opportunity to keep going or to be judged as a power mad authoritarian who wants to tell you how to think and behave. Good luck with the new guy at Simon's old place running our health system, National clearly prioritise that over tax breaks for their high earning friends in finance and the corporate world who pay for the party.

[Grumph]

COVID has changed the whole world. NZ has gotten off lightly. Was the response perfect? By no objective measure could you say yes. That said I am glad I am here in the country I now call home, not back where I grew up because the leadership here has been of a very high standard and the efforts of the nation have been superb.
You have your chance in a couple of months to have your say if the PM warrants the opportunity to keep going or to be judged as a power mad authoritarian who wants to tell you how to think and behave. Good luck with the new guy at Simon's old place running our health system, National clearly prioritise that over tax breaks for their high earning friends in finance and the corporate world who pay for the party.

You may want to rephrase the last sentence. National clearly do not prioritise a functioning health system over appeasing the corporate world.
The new leader is a reversion to the traditional god-bothering rural base type. I can't see anything but traditional Nat policies coming.

I don't know how long you've been in NZ but this type of legislation has been seen before - but not commented on as widely. Post ChCh quakes the minister in charge - Brownlie of all people - was granted extraordinary powers of entry, examination, shut downs etc, etc. It applied to the whole country but because it was seen as only being a ChCh problem it got overlooked by many. I suspect at least part of it is still on the books.
Having been through the Nat led "quake recovery" I personally am as grateful as I can be that they weren't in power when this current shit arrived.

[Ulsterkiwi]

You may want to rephrase the last sentence. National clearly do not prioritise a functioning health system over appeasing the corporate world.
The new leader is a reversion to the traditional god-bothering rural base type. I can't see anything but traditional Nat policies coming.

I don't know how long you've been in NZ but this type of legislation has been seen before - but not commented on as widely. Post ChCh quakes the minister in charge - Brownlie of all people - was granted extraordinary powers of entry, examination, shut downs etc, etc. It applied to the whole country but because it was seen as only being a ChCh problem it got overlooked by many. I suspect at least part of it is still on the books.
Having been through the Nat led "quake recovery" I personally am as grateful as I can be that they weren't in power when this current shit arrived.

Ah, clearly I over cooked my sarcasm talking about National's approach to the health system, my work is linked to the health system, I am well aware what the general approach of the National party is. Thank you however for the opportunity to make my position clear.

13 years. I was here for the tail end of the Clarke government. I was aware of Brownlee's approach which never impressed me, the man comes across as something of a bully. I have often said the rebuild seems to have taken an extraordinarily long time and has been left to the mercy of private insurance companies to set the pace, tone and ease of people rebuilding their lives. Sometimes the private (and by definition, profit driven) sector does not provide the best solution.

I am neither a red nor blue person, I am interested in appropriate solutions. In the case of the response to COVID-19 I think the blue corner has clearly shown they were well off tack re the appropriate response. The only reason Simon is now "considering his future" is Mr Muller realised verbalising the sentiments that came from National was no way back to power. What they actually think has probably not changed.


I will change tack slightly here. Part of what impressed me over the lockdown period was the way discussion shifted in the public arena where there was a growing realisation that it wasn't big corporate or the rich and famous who keep society going. In fact, is is people like hospital staff, the guys who drive the rubbish trucks, teachers, the people who keep our power supply working, supermarket staff and yes farmers who are key to maintaining the world we live in. How many companies historically talked about their people being their main asset and then treated them like shit? We were beginning to see a shift away from that in some respects. Now we are out of the worst of it, National are already saying the road ahead is not to focus on people and maintaining jobs but directing money to business. I understand they are linked, I understand business provides jobs. What I am talking about is the message that sends as to what is actually important to them, it is the business, not the people who make the business possible. I hope that fact is discussed in the coming weeks and not the usual election drivel.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm going to add a Wee Anecdote from a friend who works in a very similar capacity to what I do, but for the Health Industry (as a Government employee).

Since we do very similar things, we often bitch about various Projects, the successes and failures therein etc.

One such story was about the time my company tried to consolidate a number of back-end systems into one, spent something like $2,000,000 and never actually moved anything - was a total failure of a project.

To which my friends regales me of a tale of a Project that they had been working on, sunk the better part of $14,000,000 into it, had gotten it to the point where they were just about to roll it out and deploy it. Then comes a change of Management, Scraps the entire thing etc. etc. The worst part was the look he gave me when he said that this is fair more common with Government run things.

Point of sharing this story is not to say that National are correct when they want to have a more efficient DHB, nor is it to say that Labour are correct when they say that we need to spend more on Healthcare.

Only that perhaps all parties, including the Healthcare industries themselves, have had or still have a part to play.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I'm going to add a Wee Anecdote from a friend who works in a very similar capacity to what I do, but for the Health Industry (as a Government employee).

Since we do very similar things, we often bitch about various Projects, the successes and failures therein etc.

One such story was about the time my company tried to consolidate a number of back-end systems into one, spent something like $2,000,000 and never actually moved anything - was a total failure of a project.

To which my friends regales me of a tale of a Project that they had been working on, sunk the better part of $14,000,000 into it, had gotten it to the point where they were just about to roll it out and deploy it. Then comes a change of Management, Scraps the entire thing etc. etc. The worst part was the look he gave me when he said that this is fair more common with Government run things.

Point of sharing this story is not to say that National are correct when they want to have a more efficient DHB, nor is it to say that Labour are correct when they say that we need to spend more on Healthcare.

Only that perhaps all parties, including the Healthcare industries themselves, have had or still have a part to play.

Absolutely, big organisations be they in the public or private domain tend to chew through the $$ and have more scope for "waste"
Nobody gets off the hook as far as I am concerned. When you spend a public $ then there is a duty of care to spend it effectively as possible.
Effective spending is not about the cheapest solution, or even the most expensive one, its about the best solution. What is best will change with the context.
National and indeed all neoliberal policy around public services seems to be primarily about cost cutting. That is not the same as quality or efficiency.

[TheDemonLord]

Absolutely, big organisations be they in the public or private domain tend to chew through the $$ and have more scope for "waste"
Nobody gets off the hook as far as I am concerned. When you spend a public $ then there is a duty of care to spend it effectively as possible.
Effective spending is not about the cheapest solution, or even the most expensive one, its about the best solution. What is best will change with the context.
National and indeed all neoliberal policy around public services seems to be primarily about cost cutting. That is not the same as quality or efficiency.

I agree almost entirely, the only point of discussion is I guess the perspective that you have around 'how do we deal with "Waste"' - I see that Neo-Liberal position and have some agreements with it (Some).

I see the American argument and have some agreements with it (very few).

I see the Labour argument and (this will come as a shock to some) also have some agreements with it (possibly more than the other 2 combined).

It seems that there is some form of Balance not being met:

Too much oversight and the wheels grind to a halt, nothing gets done and if by a miracle it does, it's out-of-date.
Not enough oversight and Free-loaders and incompentents blow through cash without care or consequence.

When I figure out the right level, I'm publish the paper on it, collect my Nobel Prize and be the world renowned expert on Healthcare Administration and spending.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I agree almost entirely, the only point of discussion is I guess the perspective that you have around 'how do we deal with "Waste"' - I see that Neo-Liberal position and have some agreements with it (Some).

I see the American argument and have some agreements with it (very few).

I see the Labour argument and (this will come as a shock to some) also have some agreements with it (possibly more than the other 2 combined).

It seems that there is some form of Balance not being met:

Too much oversight and the wheels grind to a halt, nothing gets done and if by a miracle it does, it's out-of-date.
Not enough oversight and Free-loaders and incompentents blow through cash without care or consequence.

When I figure out the right level, I'm publish the paper on it, collect my Nobel Prize and be the world renowned expert on Healthcare Administration and spending.

Elections are not won by answering "it depends" instead a slogan or short term sentiment will swing things (where a swing happens, many of those who do vote I would posit, do not give how they vote a great deal of thought)

Lets look at how our health system is run, 20 DHBs each with its own budgeting, assets, management, strategy, structure, infrastructure and so on. For a country this size with a population of 5 million, surely 20 administrative units is far too many? Well, it depends.
This way each board can be responsive to local need and context. The solutions for large cities will not work for rural areas with lots of small towns and settlements. What are the demographics services are being provided for? The kind of services required and how they can be delivered will be different.

BUT

lets say we have a global pandemic and our country is facing a potentially disastrous impact on the health of its people. 20 DHBs is absolutely the LAST way we should be running what needs to be a national response. A centrally managed set of resources and rules will ensure what needs to be done for the whole country will in fact happen. Distribution of PPE anyone?

As you say balance is needed, the recognition that some things just need to be handled centrally and require investment in capability and resource that might never actually happen but how buggered will we be if we do not?