N8WUNZ

Tonight with Liz - We take a look at the "Inherent Jurisdiction" of the ERA and other courts, how the ERA is a Creature of Statute and is bound by the law, ultra vires, can the ERA order compliance and who by? Is Liz Gunn an employee of Health NZ? Another fascinating discussion Here is Liz's notes from Friday night - Inherent jurisdiction is a doctrine of the English common law that a superior court has the jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it, unless a statute or rule limits that authority or grants exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. The term is also used when a governmental institution derives its jurisdiction from a fundamental governing instrument such as a constitution. In the English case of Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd, Lord Diplock described the court's inherent jurisdiction as a general power to control its own procedure so as to prevent its being used to achieve injustice. Note that in New Zealand the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters relating to employment, functions are divided up between the Court and Authority. See sections 99, 100, the court and sections 133, 137 applying to the Authority. [13] It is a truism that the Authority is a creature of statute and that unlike the High Court, for instance, it possesses no inherent jurisdiction but has only that jurisdiction which is conferred on it by statute. [33] If, as the Union contends, the Board has misinterpreted its own functions (and in particular misinterpreted whatever obligation it might have pursuant to s9(1)(a) of the Racing Act 2003, then the decision to dismiss the second applicants may be unlawful. The Union notes that the Board is, like the Authority, a creature of statute and not a private employer and it can only do that which it is legally empowered to do. Insofar as it has gone further than the functions set out in its statute, and in particular, in the Union's submission, the function described and contained in s 9(1)(a) of the Racing Act 2003, then it has acted ultra vires its statute and potentially contributed to unjustified dismissals of the second applicants. 137 Power of Authority to order compliance (1) This section applies where any person has not observed or complied with— (a)any provision of— (i)any employment agreement; or (ii) Parts 1, 3 to 6, 6AB, 6A (except subpart 2), 6B, 6C, 6D, 7, and 9; or (iii) any terms of settlement or decision that section 151 provides may be enforced by compliance order; or (iiia) an enforceable undertaking that section 223C(1) provides may be enforced by compliance order; or (iiib) an improvement notice that section 223D(6) provides may be enforced by compliance order; or (iiic) any terms of a pay equity claim settlement under section 13ZH of the Equal Pay Act 1972; or (iv) a demand notice that section 225(4) provides may be enforced by compliance order; or (v) sections 73 and 74 of the Public Service Act 2020 and sections 597 and 600 of the Education and Training Act 2020; or (vi) sections 76 to 80 of the Public Service Act 2020 and sections 585 to 596 and 660 of the Education and Training Act 2020; or (vii) section 11(3)(c) of the Health and Disability Services Act 1993; or (viii) clauses 5 and 6 of Schedule 1 of the Broadcasting Act 1989; or (ix) sections 83, 83A, and 83B of the Fire Service Act 1975; or (x) clauses 18, 19, and 21 of Schedule 5 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001; or (xi) Part 3 and sections 589 and 600 of the Education and Training Act 2020; or (xi)[Repealed] (xii)[Repealed] (b) any order, determination, direction, or requirement made or given under this Act by the Authority or a member or officer of the Authority. (c) any order, determination, direction, or requirement made or given under the Screen Industry Workers Act 2022 by the Authority or a member or an officer of the Authority. (2) Where this section applies, the Authority may, in addition to any other power it may exercise, by order require, in or in conjunction with any matter before the Authority under this Act to which that person is a party or in respect of which that person is a witness, that person to do any specified thing or to cease any specified activity, for the purpose of preventing further non-observance of or non-compliance with that provision, order, determination, direction, or requirement. (3) The Authority must specify a time within which the order is to be obeyed. (4) The following persons may take action against another person by applying to the Authority for an order of the kind described in subsection (2): (a) any person (being an employee, employer, union, or employer organisation) who alleges that that person has been affected by non-observance or non-compliance of the kind described in subsection (1).

Another awesome zoom with Liz - As always Liz showcases case law that are Number 8 Unions super weapons against the terrible wrong doings carried out on New Zealand's loyal hard working, employees. There was NEVER any wrong doing by employees when it comes to the COVID 19 sackings. The law is there to protect employees - it is so wrong that it is taking Number 8 to point this out to employers. They should have acted lawfully in the first place! A great watch!! Please share and tell your friends all about it! Number 8 relies on funding by it's members and donations. Please donate today and help us continue to get justice for New Zealand Workers!

Tonight Liz highlights some amazing case law which shows great promise for mandate termination cases. 

 Number 8 is approach 40 successful settlements and case wins. 

 For a small group that N8 is these are outstanding results! Number 8 was told we couldn’t do it. We wouldn’t win. Well we are over and over using the laws that are there to protect us. 

 Those that did not like the look of the jab from the get go were labelled selfish, tin hatter conspiracy theorist. Well we were and are continuing to be right! 

 Liz details a case Gilbert v Transflield 2013 https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/2013-NZEmpC-71-Gilbert-v-Transfield-Services-NZ-Ltd.pdf
were an electrical worker was made redundant due to a new policy the company had implemented. 

 One of his allegations was he was selected for redundancy partly due to his union rep work. 

The main issue his lawyers put forward was that Mr Gilbert was not at fault. 

 ERA S4 A(1) - no fault situation as in the worker was not at fault for being made redundant and the employer is under an obligation to act a good faith to a larger extent due to the employee’s “No fault“ situation. Whether they were under the order or not Transfield used a “proprietary” form of psychological assessment for selecting employees from a third party contractor. They used this program as a tick the box situation so they could make people redundant as they saw fit. They were not allowed to find about how this “proprietary” worked due its secrecy. This meant the employer was not able to act in good faith in accordance with duty to act under Employment Relations Act. Where else have we heard of this situation with a secret proprietary product being used on employees? 

 This case is the case law we have been looking for! 
Employers in the public sector are also bond by the Public Services Act Section 73 which is an extra top up - Liz’s second case she will talk about Health and Safety Regulations

“Safe and Effective” - All new medicines must come through the Medicines Act and by that act cannot be warranted in any way. They were straight out lying about “safe and effective”. Medsafe itself told us in FACT that the effective part was no existent. The judge in the Gilbert case said that the employer acted irrationally and that it was not reasonable. Being reasonable means the employer must know what they are doing! Which is NOT using a secret psychological employee assessment tool OR an experiential, untested, untrialled, proprietary product that has huge side effects, questionable safety data and not long term study information!!! 

The judge told Mr Gilbert that not only were Transfield not telling him about the reasons for sacking - Transfield did not know the reasons for sacking him due to the proprietary information! 

 McAlister v Air New Zealand - Supreme Court Judgement. Watch the zoom to find out the gold here https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2009/sc-49-2008-david-mcalister-v-air-new-zealand-limited-civil-judgment.pdf 
Another fantastic zoom full of gems that so few lawyers or otherwise in this country are bothering to try and find or don’t have the skills to find!!!

This is a super important recording and for us that are interested in the New Zealand Constitution tonights episode is a must watch!
 Its all about power and where the power lies and how each branch exercises that power or doesn't exercise it. The three branches The 3 branches of government The Parliament - legislative - Supreme 
The Executive - this is the Crown The Judiciary - the Courts Tonights title is Parliament under siege. Parliament is the legislative branch and is supreme as it is the voice of the people through their ELECTED representatives. There is a problem at the base of our NZ Constitution in that we have UN-ELECTED MPs which are those on the Party List. They are not elected individually. We don’t know who they are, what they are up to or what their motivations are! Examples of this are Green MPs that have come in power off the Party List. 

 Liz takes us through MMP set up and how that originated. MMP brings coalition governments. Bring back First Past The Post which is majority rules

 Parliament under attack - Through two sources - the courts and the other is the executive The Crown, made up of the cabinet, the ministries and the Govern General who appoints the judges and a lot of powerful positions. GG also has the role of swearing and proroguing the Govt when they go off on their break. Liz suggests this is a very abused position. 

 Liz brings in the English Civil War and 1688 Bill Of Rights and how that came about. 
 Law was made by kings until 1649. Kings are not ELECTED by the people. They come into power purely based on their bloodlines. King Charles 1st committed treason against the people through huge taxation and misspending of public funds. He was tried and found guilty of Treason and executed on 30th Jan 1649. 

 There was an Act of Parliament in 1649 that made it unlawful and an Act of Treason to elect a Kind or Queen from that day forward. Find it here https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp1263-1264

 Then came 10 years of the Interregnum. All of these cases are recorded in the Acts And Ordinances Of The Interregnum which you can find here https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum?page=1 There were many changes made to English law. 
In 1660 the “Restoration” happened and it was not a success. This is when King Charles II, son of King Charles I, was bought in as King despite the Act of 1649 making it an Act of Treason. He then proceeded to repeat the same antics as his father. There was always a suspicion that King Charles II wold repeat the same treatment of non-catholics as did his father. 

 This is what gives us the preamble of 1688 Bill Of Rights, is part of our NZ Imperial Laws and our NZ Constitution. In 1688 William and Mary of Orange, who were cousins of the Stuart Kings, were bough in as “Constitutional” Monarchs only - and this is a very important distinction!! They are figureheads ONLY! The power is with the people!!! 

 The Queen In Right Of New Zealand is a company. This came about in NZ in 1986. This is the Crown - NOT parliament! The British Royals call themselves “The Firm” This is the Crown in the UK - Not the Parliament of the UK. There is push by the “Crown” corporation, which has become very very strong over the last 30-40years, to take the power away from the people and back to the crown. It would create a type of “Restoration” period again.

 Go back and watch Liz’s zoom on the treason documents here- as this is super relevant - https://rumble.com/v2v2gpw-ep-54-n8-the-results-of-the-treason-documents.html - Liz has been telling us about this stuff for ages!!!
These documents and accompanying videos show that the Executive Branch handed over the administration of NZ to an UNELECTED group. 
 KC lawyer Gary Judd article -https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/gary-judd-kc-on-judicial-imperialism 
He highlights the other attack which is from the courts in the form judges rulings that insist lawyers consider tikanga and apply it in all their cases whether it’s relevant or not! Tikanga are customs and beliefs not law. 

Liz highlights the case called Director General of Health v Wakameinanga Konehera Houora Health Council, Maori Government of NZ, a doctor and a dentist both part of NZDSOS and a couple of other people - case name and number DIRECTOR OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH v. WAKAMINENGA KAUNIHERA HAUORA CIV-2022-404-847 [2022] NZHC 1765. This shows links in to the unions. It shows link to the Nurses Union and how some people, health professionals have been lead up the garden path by WKH by them offering an alleged “superior jurisdiction” to practice their doctor and nursing skills. This was miss-information from the Crown corporation. On WKH website was statements by the Supreme Court from the Ellis case came the talk about tikanga and how lawyers in NZ should act. Thats not the role of the Supreme Court!! The Law Society added to this miss-information!! 

 A gold mine of cool stuff in this zoom with more following on from the notes above!!

Tonight - From the Children's Health Defence - "DOJ Asks Court to Toss Whistleblower Lawsuit Alleging Pfizer Defrauded U.S. Government "The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Tuesday asked to intervene in a lawsuit alleging Pfizer committed fraud during clinical trials for its COVID-19 vaccine. The DOJ also asked the court to dismiss whistleblower Brook Jackson’s lawsuit against Pfizer." In this rumble Liz takes us through an recent and ongoing US court case where the US Department of Justice has asked the court to dismiss the case in which Brook Jackson, a former employee of the Ventavia Research Group, an independent lab that conducted some of the clinical trials for the Pfizer-BioNTechCOVID-19vaccine, is suing Pfizer, Ventavia and ICON Pty another Pfizer contractor, alleging the companiescommitted numerous violationsof theFalse Claims Actduring the trials. This is a very relevant case for us here in NZ - We could potentially use this strategy with out Fair Trading Act. It also shows that the US DOJ should be helping with the case suing Pfizer not trying to get the case dismissed!! 

 Another amazing insight from our own N8 Liz!

Amanda Turner at the Nursing Council Profession Conduct Committee Tribunal. Amanda is a victim the same as Dr Matt Shelton and Dr Canaday. Victimised due to exercising her right to freedom of speech - In particular freedom of political speech - But Amanda was taking action much earlier than Dr Matt and Canaday. Amanda is a very modest person but was a absolute pioneer and a trooper for us all when it came to pushing back against the information coming out of the media and so forth when C19 first reared its ugly head. And also in the hearing. Such courage! She is truly a Patriot for this country and is firm on her beliefs and the Nursing Council took exception to that 

 Her case has been through the Employment Relations Authority(Not with N8) and Employment Court(with N8) and now being appealed to Court of Appeal to review the findings of the judge - in particular Right To Freedom of Political Speech. 

 Liz explains the background to Amanda’s case and how the Disciplinary Council should lawfully act as the acts are written. The question was how had Amanda cased harm to the public? Had she done this via her Facebook page? Had her conduct shown incompetence? Did her behaviour bring the Nursing Council or Medical council into disrepute? 

 The lawyer for the other side admitted he had no idea how fb worked and did not have an account and yet he was there to act for the Nursing Council at Amanda’s hearing. The law is not the problem - it is the lawyers. Too busy looking at their bank balance but not focusing on justice 

 The tribunal big wigs have become very used to being top dogs. 
 What does this have to do with the Tom Cruise movie from 2002? It’s the notion that someone can be guilty before they have actually carried out wrong doing and what a huge can of worms that is. The movie does a good job of bringing our attention to this subject and that it is already “a thing” with lowering of speed limits, excessive amounts of judder bars and the Govt thinking they need to tell us how to healthy. NOT!!!

 Once again another must watch for kiwis wanting to learn the truth of what is happening in tribunals such as the Nurses Disciplinary Tribunal

From the zoom LAWYER SPEAK "The Vaccinations Order was made by the Minister for COVID-19 Response under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. While the Ministry provided advice to the government on the drafting of the Vaccinations Order (and later, on its administration), the decision about whether to implement the Vaccinations Order was not one the Ministry was able to, or did, make. The Ministry was involved with the development of advice about vaccination and PCBUs' obligations under the Vaccinations Order, including public advice available through government websites. Employers were not directed through this advice, or otherwise, to apply a particular employment outcome if a person did not get vaccinated. The Ministry did not have any role in how employers chose to implement or comply with the Vaccinations Order. This was a matter for employees and employers to work through, considering their specific operational arrangements and what could be accommodated. Liz takes us through so much in this zoom - A definite must watch!!!

Liz starts tonights zoom off with a legal definition of - JUSTIFICATION. What is a Tort? Liz goes on to explain the definition and how it is relevant to lodging Personal Grievances and 103(1) (A) of Employment Relations Act - Test of Justification in Unjustified dismissal and 103(1)(B) is Disadvantage in the course of employment. N8 is having wins using these and continues to use them. This gives sacked workers 3 years to take an employment action against their bosses or ex bosses. The above section states “The question of wether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined on an objective basis by applying the test in subsection 2. The test is whether the employer’s actions and how the employer acted were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred.
 
Liz continues on to explain how the above and the rest of this section has great significance. 

What is legally “objective” and “justifiable”? If this is not looked from a legal perspective then its “subjective”

Employers and lawyers are getting tripped up with this. Liz further explores the recent Defence Force ruling a week after the ruling came out. Super interesting. Members of the defence Force can sue the crown. This happened in the Yardley decision. The recent case is different. They never looked at the HSWA which applies to the Armed Forces which does apply when they are in NZ. Liz takes us through Armed Forces Discipline Act and how this all ties together OIAs - more gold dust from these! 
https://fyi.org.nz/request/25517-payments-for-covid-related-illnesses-to-your-workers-at-the-ministry-of-health#incoming-96875

https://rumble.com/v4esc4t-lily-nightingale-oia-request.html 
https://mega.nz/file/66QBXSQI#-oMp7kenmA80Humd7feQ1meE8wuH1pqH-vOFOzwOX-I https://www.facebook.com/erika.whittome/posts/pfbid0f7HbJzapGCLtEaiY21rwTNZM1R4uLXJ9QvQsqsVTwGdaX77WTSsNzKm6sj58DYVrl 

Insane Govt overspending https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/danyl-mclauchlan-unjarndycing-the-state 
Plus so much more! TIMELINE, SHOWNOTES & CONTENT LINKS TIMELINE Section 1 – 00:00:00 - The legal definition of justification is a legally sufficient reason or cause for an act that would otherwise be criminal or tortious - grounds for a lawsuit. - A personal grievance (PG) in employment law is based on a tort or breach of contract. Tort means a harm against another person or their property. - Tort cases are civil matters, tried in the same courts as criminal cases like district or high court. - The discussion focuses on section 103A of the Employment Relations Act regarding unjustified dismissal or disadvantage during employment. This is relevant to the later discussion on NZDF case. - Section 103A lays out an objective test for determining if a dismissal or disadvantageous action by the employer was justifiable based on what a reasonable employer would do in the circumstances. - The speaker argues dismissals and actions by employers like vaccine mandates must have a legitimate reason to be considered justifiable rather than subjective under the law. - The Basher case talks about the employers advantage with resources. - They discuss how this section impacts other employment cases arguing justification before the authority or courts. Section 2 – 00:09:00 - The discussion focuses on the NZ Defence Force (NZDF) vaccine mandate case ruled on by the High Court. It found the mandate inconsistent with various laws including the Bill of Rights Act. - The NZDF is constituted under the Defence Act (DA) 1990 and bound by NZ laws. Members can enforce their rights against the Crown via the Bill of Rights Act. - The Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) covers the NZDF and they must promote health and safety even during training. The NZDF has been sued by WorkSafe before over accidents. - Noting section 7 subsection 9 - In commanding the New Zealand Defence Force, the Chief of Defence Force must take into account the need to promote the purpose of this Act to the greatest extent consistent with maintaining the defence of New Zealand. So, NZDF not only must abide, but promote the Act. - Sections of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 were mentioned in relation to orders and health endangerment. Section 39 & 72. - Liz discusses the NZDF ruling establishes that orders must be lawful under the Bill of Rights Act. This impacts other cases relating to vaccine mandates. - While the Bill of Rights Act doesn't provide remedies, the Health and Safety at Work Act could be used to argue adverse conduct from mandates. - They have their own military courts, the Court Martial of New Zealand, therefore don’t use the employment courts. Section 45 (5) Defence Act 1990 - Nothing in the Employment Relations Act 2000 applies to the conditions of service of members of the Armed Forces. Section 45 (3) & (4) remuneration – under contract of service. Temporary defence force order. - Implications of the ruling for ongoing NZDF compliance and its relevance for other appeals were discussed. Re those under the orders, how they were enforced. The summary focused on the key legal points. Importance of section 72 DA 1990 Endangering the health of members of the Armed Forces. NZDF and public service commission. 00:27:00 - Employment relations Act binds the crown, as all acts do. Contract for services v contract of services. Unwritten contracts. - Summing up the NZDF case and recommendation to use the HSWA. Liz explains how employment agreements can use NZBORA. Section 3 – 00:34:00 - The section focuses on analysing Ministry of Health worker data obtained through OIA requests related to COVID policies and their impact. - An should be done OIA could ask if politicians/judges received exemptions, it’s suggested they may have. - Erika discusses more OIA’s. Another OIA asked how many Ministry of Health workers claimed ACC (accredited employer) for long COVID effects. The response was none. - 615 Ministry staff took "discretionary" COVID leave from March 2020-January 2023. Over 10% of estimated 5000 staff. Could take sick days to attend vaccination or recover from side effects from vaccination. - It's suggested sick leave before/after 2020 should be compared. Accrued leave amounts were also mentioned. - HR data on sick leave days/rates is tracked, unlike vaccine status. Follow-up OIAs are proposed on total sick leave days for the 615 workers. - Anecdotes shared about workers reporting illness after vaccination. Staff growth was prevalent in government agencies, OIA required. OIA sleuthing requested. Section 4 – 00:48:00 - This section focuses on the OIA requests, vaccine side effects report, informed consent issues and legal implications of the Pfizer indemnity provided. - The discussion refers to an OIA request made by Dr. Lily Nightingale to the Ministry of Health about COVID vaccine side effects. Interview with Liz Gunn. - The OIA included 7 questions and the responses referred to other people's OIAs, requiring collating multiple responses. - The Pfizer post-marketing report released by a US court order contained around 1200 different diagnoses of side effects. - Informed consent questions were raised about whether consent was truly informed without knowledge of the full side effects report. - Mention of leaked vaccination data identifying around 12,000 vaccinators, though this was questioned as individual vaccinators were not directly paid. Lump sum for facilities? Companies registry. - Have they changed Barry Youngs charge? From stealing to leaking. - Discussion of Gazette publications formerly identifying tuberculosis vaccinators and why this stopped. - Details from the New Zealand Parliament handbook around Minister Grant Robertson declaring an indemnity to Pfizer over $10 million as required by law. Hansard – parliamentary reports. 21 Oct 2021. Grant Robinson now the chancellor of Otago University - Questions raised about the scope of this indemnity and implications for potential future liability claims. Section 5 – 01:04:00 OPEN CHAT - This section focuses on monitoring of online content, updates on Barry Young's case, critique of wasteful government spending patterns, and disincentives for efficient small government. - The discussion starts about Bill Gates' father being involved in eugenics and how Gates Foundation now funds the WHO. - Discussion if government agencies like the police monitor people who share certain content on Facebook that gets flagged/banned. -Damian. D. investigation into university of Auckland. - Mention of US media dominance in covering events like the Super Bowl in New Zealand. - Brief discussion about a Russian IP address attempting to access someone's computer. - Updates on Barry Young's recent court appearances regarding leaked health data. Suggestion he should pursue whistleblower protections. - Discussion of an article about wasteful government spending on projects like Let's Get Wellington Moving, with hundreds of millions spent on consultants rather than infrastructure. - Analysis that governments have incentives to continue wasteful spending patterns since they face no bankruptcy risk from taxpayer funding. - The story of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, Bleak House by Charles Dickens – fee’s eaten up by lawyers - Comments about lack of incentive for small/efficient government given current large taxation and policies that enable profitable public sector bureaucracy. - A group called A Private Agenda CONTENT LINKS Section 1 ERIKA WHITTOME: General Secretary of the Number 8 Workers' Union: On How the New Unions Are Changing the Landscape https://realitycheck.radio/erika-whittome-general-secretary-of-the-number-8-workers-union-on-how-the-new-unions-are-changing-the-landscape/ S. 103A Test of justification - Employment Relations Act 2000 (1) For the purposes of section 103(1)(a) and (b), the question of whether a dismissal or an action was justifiable must be determined, on an objective basis, by applying the test in subsection(2). https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM60327.html FOUR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES v CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE [2024] NZCA 17 [16 February 2024 https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZCA-17.pdf Bill of Rights Act 1990 (New Zealand) https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html Defence Act 1990 (New Zealand) Section 45(3) requires the Chief of Defence Force consult with the Public Service Commission on wages. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0028/latest/whole.html#DLM206071 Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 – see section 72 - Endangering the health of members of the Armed Forces https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1971/0053/latest/whole.html Section 7 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 - Application of Act to Armed Forces https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/whole.html#DLM5976671 Erika OIA - Payments for covid related illnesses to your workers at the Ministry of Health https://fyi.org.nz/request/25517-payments-for-covid-related-illnesses-to-your-workers-at-the-ministry-of-health#incoming-96875 Lily Nightingale OIA interview with Liz Gunn https://rumble.com/v4esc4t-lily-nightingale-oia-request.html OIA Pfizer side effects https://mega.nz/file/66QBXSQI#-oMp7kenmA80Humd7feQ1meE8wuH1pqH-vOFOzwOX-I Insane Govt overspending https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/danyl-mclauchlan-unjarndycing-the-state Hastings truck driver who refused Covid jab gets $29,000 payout for wrongful dismissal https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/hastings-truck-driver-who-refused-covid-jab-gets-29000-payout-for-wrongful-dismissal/3QG5LXXYI5HPFMJBWXH3HMX23E/ Jarndyce and Jarndyce (or Jarndyce v Jarndyce) is a fictional probate case in Bleak House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce Multi choice quiz: https://poe.com/s/FfWdMsZm7758ie7dqbWW

Liz takes through the '1400' OIA and as example of how we can dig in to the gvts own records, in this case and OIA which shows the vast majority of pharmacies, marae, jab clinics, medical practices and how many jab doses were delivered to them which was then combined with what we know they got paid per dose for administration of the jabs. SOOO much money was made by these places.... One group in particular allow their car park to be used to make $1.72M by pushing what we now know in so many cases is a poison. By combining this data Intellectual Property is created. Liz also chats about a number of other great subjects - all great learnings for us TIMELINE, SHOWNOTES & CONTENT LINKS Section 1 – 00:00:00 - Intro to zoom topic which aims to teach legal detective work from the comfort of your armchair - 00:02:35 Brief discussion about the just released Court of Appeal case, FOUR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES v CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE [2024] NZCA 17 [16 February 2024] re COVID-19 vaccination mandate & s. 191 & s. 36 HSWA relevance. See Ep. 109 for Liz’s summary - Administrative law aka crown in commonwealth and the administration in the U.S - Brief on Shepherd SA case - Lawyers Matthew Hague from Frontline Law represented the appellants. - The discussion touches on the legal aspects around authority, health and safety law, and how long these cases take to make their way through the appeals process. Section 2 – 00:16:31 - The discussion is about appealing authority cases related to COVID-19 mandates to the Employment Court. Arguments will include violations of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. - Section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act is cited in relation to whether CEOs like the Chief of Defence Force had proper authority to issue vaccination mandates. - The discussion shifts to the topic of how ordinary people can investigate and expose corruption through Official Information Act requests and open-source research. - Examples are given of analysing vaccination data to estimate profits made through public-private partnerships during New Zealand's vaccination program. - Looking up company directors and interests on the New Zealand Companies Office website is suggested as a way for people to research local clinics and organizations involved in the vaccine rollout. - Sending OIA requests to investigate potential conflicts of interest of officials/organizations is presented as a form of "gumshoe" or private detective work citizens can do from their own computers. - The goal is to shift public narratives by bringing transparency around financial interests and proper legal authority regarding COVID-19 policies and mandates. Section 3 – 00:29:57 - The discussion focuses on the website FYI.org.nz, which publishes Official Information Act (OIA) requests and allows users to comment and tag requests. This is presented as a resource to research topics and potentially spur further OIA questions. - Erika analysed the vaccination data from the T. Lee OIA response to estimate financial figures. Her reworking of the data could be considered intellectual property, a property right under copyright law. NZ Copyright Act 1994. - Raw data itself is usually not copyrightable, but substantial analysis or presentation that requires skill/labor could be an original work. - Barry Young, who used health data in charts, arguably created new intellectual property from that data. Copyright and the tension between work product and personal intellectual property is discussed. - OIA data itself is considered public information, but substantial new analysis or presentation of that data could potentially be copyrighted as a new original work. - Intellectual property includes things like books, manuals, theses, which can be copyrighted if they are original works of authorship. - However, one needs to be careful not to plagiarize or steal the intellectual property of others. - There is sometimes a tension between work created as part of employment, versus personal intellectual property. Substantial independent work may merit protection. - Liz sums up her message on sleuthing. - Overall citizen-led research and use of OIA data is presented as a way for people to investigate topics, change narratives and potentially spur new OIA requests or legal cases. Section 4 – 00:38:50 - Two employment mediations were successfully resolved this week. The Wayne Basher truck driver case is mentioned, which is a N8 case. It’s noted there was incorrect reporting by Epoch Times that he breached his contract by not getting vaccinated. - Touching on the case of midwife and previous N8 guest Irene. - A comment is made about hospitals struggling to find staff and begging nurses to return, suggesting overreliance on overseas labor and lack of English language skills in some cases for jobs interacting with patients. Another visa category discovered. - A "settlers party" is being planned for mid-year to celebrate cases settled in mediation and ERAs. Attendees would need to come in masks to maintain confidentiality. OPEN CHAT - Brief discussion of the 1971 film Gumshoe, which someone had happened upon in looking up the term. - It's noted the Wayne Basher truck driver case should be findable on the ERA website now under his name and company Big Chill. - Big Chill/Freightways is an accredited employer through ACC, meaning they stand in ACC's shoes for any work injuries. Suggested ex-employees could look at pursuing the company directly in court. So join the union. - An article is mentioned about a local Māori trustee group and concerns raised about potential financial interests in promoting vaccinations in the community. Encourages to look at the company registers - DHBs are also noted to be accredited ACC employers, meaning injuries from their actions could potentially be pursued through them as well. Also have professional indemnity insurance. CONTENT LINKS FOUR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES v CHIEF OF DEFENCE FORCE [2024] NZCA 17 [16 February 2024 https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2024/2024-NZCA-17.pdf Gumshoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumshoe_System https://pelgranepress.com/2023/03/08/a-taxonomy-of-investigations/ Section 191 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 - Designated agencies https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5977182.html 13897 Official Information requests found https://fyi.org.nz/list/successful Copyright Act 1994 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM345634.html Hastings truck driver who refused Covid jab gets $29,000 payout for wrongful dismissal https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/hastings-truck-driver-who-refused-covid-jab-gets-29000-payout-for-wrongful-dismissal/3QG5LXXYI5HPFMJBWXH3HMX23E/

In this zoom - Liz takes us for a fascinating deep dive in to one our N8 super duper OIAs related to Section 191 of HSWA. This OIA clearly shows that most gvt agencies had no designation under section 191 to carry out any C19 mandates, enforcement lockdowns etc. 
Staggering!
 N8 seems to the lone voice in the wilderness with this! Most other legal (so called) professionals are asleep at the wheel. 


 We also take a lot at two other OIAs which have been bought together on a spreadsheet to show the names of jab administrators such as medical clinics, pharmacies, marae, jab buses and so on and the dollars per jab they have been paid for dishing out the poison. 
The figures are nuts - tens of thousands to millions. Oh how money hungry these people are! They are in the firing line big time now with the outcome of the recent Australian case “Shepherd v The State of South Australia in right of Child Protect” where a worker injured by the poison has won his case against his employer as his jab injury is a workplace injury - This has blown the door wide open for court cases all over the world!


please support Number 8 by being a paid member - even if you do not have an employment problem - think of it as a great insurance policy and you will also be supporting those that have current cases. 
 You can also make a donation here - TSB account Number 8 Workers’ Union Inc 15-3968-0114433-00


 Thanks so much! TIMELINE, SHOWNOTES & CONTENT LINKS Section 1 – 00:00:00 - Intro and explanation of the title “Puppet Strings become Visible” and ultra vires actions of the employers. - Summarising Butler v Shepherd, the employment case from 2011 where employee/Butler sued the University of Auckland (crown agent)over workplace issues and complaints. Butler decided to take the case to the High court rather than the employment authority. - Butler also argued his right to freedom of speech under the Bill of Rights Act was violated. - The court ruled that an employment contract is not considered a "function" under section 3B of the BORA, so employees cannot use BORA arguments in employment cases. Additionally his judicial reviews were struck out. - This ruling was cited in later cases like Turner to block employees from using BORA rights. - Overview of the case Liz is arguing in a current Court of Appeal case that employers do have a "duty" to be a good employer, which could be considered a function under the BORA. This duty has never been properly tested. - Discussion on the relevance of the Mighty River Power case. The Mighty River Power case involved a union contract incorporating section 11 of Bill of Rights (expressed term). The court recognised this could apply in employment contracts, but in the end they didn’t win and that was justified under Section 5. - If successful, it would allow public sector employees to argue violations of their BORA rights in employment disputes, as the Public Service Act also references rights under the BORA. Section 22 PSA 2020 Rights and freedoms of public service employees. - Practice developing the BORA duty arguments as the Union awaits the Court of Appeal's decision on whether to fully hear the Turner case. Leave to appeal stage but will find out in March. Section 2 – 00:13:49 - The Bill of Rights Act is seen as New Zealand's key constitutional law that outlines citizens' rights and sets standards for how government should operate. - The BORA places limits on the executive, courts and Parliament to prevent them overstepping individual rights. It’s their set of rules!! Recent government actions may have breached these rights. - Boxes (bound authority) and strings (legislation) example. - Section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act (string) allows some agencies to take on powers usually held by WorkSafe NZ as the regulator. - An Sept 2023 OIA request by Erika revealed several agencies had Section 191 designations extending their regulatory powers, including Maritime NZ and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). - View the OIA and Gazette designation notices provided/not provided by MBIE OIA response https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2016-go958 - The CAA's 2015 designation covered the aviation sector except military flights. It granted all of WorkSafe's functions and powers regarding aircraft workplaces. Kirsten Hewlitt CEO was the CAA authority person designated for granting 12A exemptions. - Issues were raised that the CAA purported to exercise oversight beyond just aircraft workplaces as defined, overstepping its designated authority. - Proper designations that clearly define an agency's extended powers and scope are important constitutional 'strings' that empower agencies to take certain actions. an important legal precedent. Section 3 – 00:29:24 - The discussion questions whether agencies like Maritime NZ and the Civil Aviation Authority properly acted within their designated powers under Section 191 of the HSWA when enforcing COVID measures. Listen to Erika’s nail file and gasoline explanation as to the powers of CAA under the HSWA 2015. - An agency's powers are defined by legislation/statutory instruments and going beyond this scope would be considered "ultra vires" or outside their lawful authority. - The CAA's 2016 designation only applied to aviation workplaces like aircraft, not the broader ports and airport areas they purported to regulate. - Similarly, Maritime NZ's 2016 designation was limited to ships and work on board ships, not ports. However they have updated the designation 2023 to include ports, which is too late for them as it doesn’t work retrospectively https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2023-go3992 - How the Shepherd v The state of South Australia (In Right of the Department For Child Protection) determination is relevant in NZ re vax injury being a workplace injury. Reference to why the section 83 notices were given to bosses initially. - Issues are raised about businesses like Foodstuffs requiring vaccinations still. As accredited employers under the ACC scheme, it could create workplace injury liabilities. This could dissuade their woke agenda. Liz to go for a declaration from the employment court about employers being unable to request vax status in advertising for jobs. - Austin v Silver Fern Farms Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 88 - Employer duties of care case example discussed. Silver Fern Farms Ltd (SFFL) were accredited employers. Judge allowed late PG submission due to SFFL’s conduct in persuading the withdrawal of the work injury claim and subsequent treatment of the plaintiff. - A “mock” infringement notice from the Ministry of Health is discussed, citing the non-existent "Fish Acts 1996" implying they lacked proper enforcement powers. MOH as controlling third party. - References are made to relevant case law establishing employers' duties of care and that COVID could constitute a workplace hazard in some contexts. - See the transcript document titled “COVID-19 RESPONSE VACCINATIONS LEGISLATIONBILL 3rd reading” and discussion that the government has to get the empowering provisions right in order to fine people. - An OIA was submitted questioning the Ministry of Health's issuance of fines and designation as a regulator under Section 191. Awaiting response…following the money!!! Section 4 – 00:50:05 - An Excel spreadsheet is shown containing data from an OIA response, listing locations that received COVID vaccine doses from July 2020 along with the number of doses and estimated payment amount assuming $36.05 per dose. Receipt and Dispatch Data - OIA CRM0401037 July 2023 - Over 1400 locations are listed, with some receiving thousands or tens of thousands of doses. Total doses received were over 13 million, equating to an estimated $484 million in payments. - Examples are discussed of payments made to specific pharmacies and medical centres around New Zealand based on the number of doses they received. - Concerns are raised that locations may not have had adequate trained staff to administer vaccines but hired temporary workers for the financial incentive. - An example is given of a mobile vaccinator allegedly providing just 30 minutes training before administering vaccines to school children for $50 each, without proper oversight. - It is suggested the data obtained could potentially identify problems and be used to investigate improper administration of vaccines for financial gain. - The large sums of public money involved in the vaccine rollout are criticized as "blood money" given associated health issues. Further transparency around payments is called for. Section 5 – 01:05:15 OPEN CHAT - Further discussion on which pharmacies made bank and ability to track batch numbers. Barry Young’s data is discussed re death stats. - Accredited employers under ACC stand in for ACC and take on risks/liabilities for workplace injuries but pay discounted levies. They bear full responsibility for injuries/costs. - An example is discussed of a worker seriously injured on the job who is being denied proper compensation and medical care by the employer's private insurer, despite obvious fault. Suggestions are made that the union-provided lawyer may be compromised and not properly advocating for the injured worker. - The courts can review disadvantage and contract breach against accredited employers, even if insurance matters go to District Court. Reference to the $2M court case (Cronin-Lampe v Board of Trustees of Melville High School) - Freezing work carries risks and serious injuries could occur, though intentional self-harm for insurance payouts is doubted. - Life insurers may deny claims if injuries arise from voluntary medical interventions like vaccines. - Many open legal issues remain around liability, compensation and oversight of accredited employers taking on injury risks. The situation is still developing in a "Wild West" environment. Section 6 – 01:21:26 OPEN CHAT - Conversations are discussed between unions and the World Economic Forum looking to control stakeholders like unions. Video evidence exists of this cooperation. - Farmers across Europe are protesting major cuts to farming being pushed by the WEF using climate change as an excuse. They are blockading cities with thousands of tractors. - The protests are being heavily suppressed in mainstream media coverage according to alternative sources. - Putin is described as an intelligent former KGB agent, and his interview with Tucker Carlson discussing Russia and the oligarchs is recommended viewing. - Under Soviet rule, state factories and assets were privatized and stripped, which Putin opposed and took action against the oligarchs involved. - Submissions are being sought by the Royal Commission investigating the government's COVID response. The union is still deciding whether to make a submission focused on rule of law issues. - Maintaining the rule of law principle is important to prevent unjust overreach of power by governing bodies beyond their proper authority. CONTENT LINKS Section 1 Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler v Martin Shepherd Hc Ak https://nz.vlex.com/vid/jesse-waiariki-temanava-butler-793537537 Electrical Union 2001 Incorporated, Dean Gregory Cowell V And Mighty River Power Limited https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/assets/20 13-NZEmpC-197-Electrial-Union-2001-Inc-and-Anor-v-Mighty-River-Pow.pdf Section 3 (b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Application (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224799.html Public Service Act 2020 (New Zealand) - Section 22 (1) Rights and freedoms of public service employees (1) This section acknowledges that public service employees have all the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in accordance with the provisions of that A https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/LMS356882.html Section 2 Health and Safety at Work (Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand) Agency Designation 2015 https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2016-go958 Health and Safety at Work (Maritime New Zealand) Agency Designation 2015 https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2016-go957 Shepherd v The State of South Australia (in right of the Department for Child Protection) [2024] SAET 2 https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/2.html Stuart Clive Austin v Silver Fern Farms Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 88 - Employer duties of care case example https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/2014-NZEmpC-30-Austin-v-Silver-Fern-Farms-Ltd.pdf Erika’s OIA re MOH fines https://fyi.org.nz/request/25596-fines-you-have-issued-under-covid-and-s191-designation-under-hswa#incoming-95954 Receipt and Dispatch Data - OIA CRM0401037 July 2023 https://number8.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Receipt-and-Dispatch-Data-OIA-21339-CRM0401037-Summary-3.pdf 2023 NZEmpC 144 Cronin-Lampe v Board of Trustees of Melville A recent employment court case awarding over $1.79 million in damages is discussed as potentially relevant for breach of contract claims. Pecuniary loss. https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/ Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-144-Cronin-Lampe-v-Board-of-Trustees-of-Melville-High-School.pdf See damages/remedies https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-221-Cronin-Lampe-v-BoT-of-Melville-High-School-No-2.pdf Ep 104 N8 Fri 19th Jan 2024 C19 IS NOT a Workplace Hazard & ACC the door to vax injrd claims https://rumble.com/v483pht-ep-104-n8-fri-19th-jan-2023-c19-is-not-a-workplace-hazard-and-acc-the-door-.html Quiz 107 - https://poe.com/s/cjrjkhm312lIoNsfKMsg

Wow this was another fantastic lesson in law from Liz! 

 Through an OIA (not us this time but thanks to that clever person!) we have been able access the data from a document “Receipts and Dispatches” for all the jabs. This document shows us that thousands of providers were paid $36 per shot at no cost to themselves and there were around 8 million shots. 

This new OIA shows data from the same source. It shows there was an income estimated to be around $486 million just for the administration of the shots. 
Barry Young put data together from this same source (using his own IP as how to go about this Liz added) which showed the dramatic uptick in the number of deaths from the time of the Chch mask tooting as a place to start. His data also showed who gave the shots - pharmacies etc and attributed the number of deaths to each jabber. If you have not seen our Whistle Blower Rumbles I would recommend watching. They are viewer favourites! 

 As a side note, Barry’s data shows how money hungry some of the pharmacies were and their death statics reflect this and that the South Island was targeted big time with “bad batches”.

 Churches, Marae, jabathons, Rainbows End, Jab Buses, workplaces, school all took part in this directly or indirectly… 

 Australian case Shepard v The State of South Australia In Right of the Department of Child Protection decided on 15th Jan 2024 https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/2.html?fbclid=IwAR1P-K_eO3roVxLj4ipD6L2a-2nEmbMjzJkc2u-sjIUMS0_EoVCDk-1DDmM 

 In this case a worker had a serious adverse event after his third shot. The judge found in the workers favour to receive compensation from his employer who was the State.

 Liz takes us through the case which is super interesting and shows great promise for our New Zealand jab injured. 

 One of the standout messages in this case is that it shows that the State in Australia used primary legislation for C19 and they still lost this case! Here in NZ much of our C19 legislation was secondary so we potentially have something big ready to happen! 

 The worker was injured in the course of his employment as are so many of NZ jabbed injured

Liz reveals more very relevant details of this case and how these apply to New Zealand plus we look at parts of the Accident Compensation Act 2011 that are related to this case

 A must watch! TIMELINE & SHOW NOTES Section 1 – 00:00:00 - Starting with discussion on a document from an OIA request listing COVID vaccine providers in New Zealand and how much they were paid per shot administered (estimated $36 per shot). - Over 8 million shots were administered out of 12 million purchased, with around 4-5 million people eligible. This suggests they planned for 3 shots per eligible person. - Barry Young previously analysed data showing correlations between vaccine batches and increased deaths within 3 months. - The new document names all the pharmacies, clinics, etc. that provided vaccines and estimates total payout of $486 million just for administration. - However, District Health Boards who organized mass vaccination events are not listed, so the total payout is likely higher. - Liz will discuss how this data connects to a legal case from Australia called Shepherd that is very relevant. Section 2 – 00:07:50 - Discussion around the case of Shepherd v The state of South Australia (In Right of the Department For Child Protection) which was decided 15 Jan 2024. Focuses on implications of the Shepherd case in establishing precedent that workers can seek compensation if they experience adverse effects from mandated vaccination. - DCP equivalent is Oranga Tamariki. The facts were he was a child and youth support worker and worked for Baptist Care SA that had a sub contract with the DCP. - Covid-19 PHRA 2020 (secondary legislation) is equivalent to Emergency Management Act 2004 SA (primary legislation.) Equivalent order in SA is called a “direction”. *Spoiler: The state is beat even when using primary legislation. Two directions were made under section 25 of the EMA. - Mr. Shepherd experienced chest pains after his first two COVID vaccine doses and did not want to get the booster. After the booster he experienced severe chest pains. He struggled with chest pain and fatigue for months after. - Key details of Mr. Shepherd's medical history, symptoms and the communications pressuring him to get vaccinated are summarized. - The case establishes that employees required to get vaccinated by public health orders/directions can seek compensation from employers if they experience adverse effects. - This has implications for challenges to vaccine mandates and orders in New Zealand by establishing precedent that workers can be compensated. - The defense counsel Mr Garnaut attempted to argue Mr. Shepherd misconstrued the communications but the case ultimately found in his favour, setting an important legal precedent. Section 3 – 00:19:00 - Liz discusses the case and legal basis for vaccine mandates in Australia under the Emergency Management Act and connections to New Zealand's legislation. - Liz recommends taking note of paragraphs 33, 34, 35 and 37. Liz schools on interpreting acts and their interactions. Note Section 5 of the EMA. - Referencing sections 14 and 23 of the EM Act related to declaring emergencies and giving authorities special powers during emergencies. NZ’s emergency management part ended June 8th 2020 and were then on notices under the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006. See past zoom re EPA 2006. - The judgment notes that the SA Emergency Management Act incorporated a section from their Health Act providing immunity from liability for actions taken in good faith. - A similar "freedom from liability" clause was incorporated into New Zealand's. The 2020 COVID PHRA Section 34 references the protection in Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 for legal liability for actions taken under health legislation/orders. - This provides immunity for public servants and those implementing legislation/orders as long as they act in good faith and not recklessly. - Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Act 2021 mentioned. The act expressly amended nine Acts but does not refer to the RTW Act. - However, Liz points out that later in the judgment, the state is still found to be liable despite these immunity provisions. - An important point is made that the objectives of New Zealand's COVID-19 Response Act did not actually include vaccination, yet vaccinations were mandated under it. - This implies the immunity provisions may not apply since vaccination was not within the intended scope and objectives of the Act as passed by Parliament. - The importance of comprehending the “Objects” of an act. - The judgement analyses whether the worker's injuries arose from his employment or the vaccine mandate directives. This determines if he can claim compensation. - The state argued the injuries arose from the directives not employment but the judge considered previous cases and ultimately found it was related to employment. - This establishes precedent that injuries from mandated vaccination can be considered work-related and eligible for compensation through workers' compensation law. - Bjekic v State of New South Wales: Court of Appeals case cited. Section 4 – 00:30:18 - The judgement discusses and distinguishes previous cases like Dawking v Secretary regarding when injuries from anticipated health orders can be considered work-related. - References Roberts v Comcare, where a worker sustained mosquito bites at employer-provided accommodation and the injury was still considered work-related. - The judgement analyses the bifurcated causal criteria in Section 7 of the Return to Work Act - that the injury can arise either out of or in the course of employment. - It is found that Mr. Shepherd's injury directly resulted from the vaccine mandate direction and his employment, as he would not have gotten the third dose otherwise. - The state argues the Emergency Management Act protects it from liability for vaccine directions. - However, the judgement cites several administrative law cases establishing that statutory powers must be reasonably exercised with regard to individual rights. - It discusses the importance of legislative intent when interpreting laws that interfere with fundamental rights/freedoms. - Mentions and analysis of: #41.Dawking v Secretary (Department of Education): NSW case finding anticipated health order caused compensable injury #51. Puntoriero v Westside Concrete Pty Ltd: WA case establishing poisoning of farm water was unlawful. #52. Metropolitan Water Sewerage & Drainage Board v O.K. Elliott Ltd: Establishes statutory powers must consider individual rights. #53. Coco v The Queen: [1994] HCA 15): High Court of Australia case on interpreting laws that modify rights/privileges. #54. Deane and Dawson JJ: Their substantial agreement with Coco v The Queen. Section 5 – 00:43:12 - The judgement discusses a previous NZ employment case where workers were denied pay for not getting vaccinated, which was found unjust by the court. CSN v Royal District Nursing Service New Zealand Limited - While the defense argued pandemic laws require more leniency, the judge found workers' compensation liabilities are well understood and injuries foreseeable. - The EM Act would need to expressly exclude liability for mandated vaccine injuries, which it did not. - Employees can claim compensation for work-related COVID, so this injury from a mandated vaccine should also be compensable. - Private sector workers required to vaccinate by employers can also claim compensation. - The judgement orders the claimant receive weekly income support and medical payments. - This establishes a precedent that injuries from mandated vaccination in employment contexts can be claimed through workers' compensation. - Liz discusses that injured individuals in NZ should pursue compensation claims against employers and the state using this legal basis and precedent. - References pursuing claims through the Employment Court and ACC in NZ: Would rely on provisions in the Accident Compensation Act 2001 and Employment Relations Act 2000. Section 6 – 00:55:43 - The discussion analysing key sections of New Zealand's Accident Compensation Act relating to what qualifies as a work-related injury or accident. - Section 6 on interpretation and Section 25 on psychological/psychiatric injuries from events like attempted suicide are referenced. - Liz argues vaccination injuries could satisfy the criteria of a "specific event" involving external "force" or "resistance" like a needle injection. - Precedent cases establishing compensation for mosquito-borne illnesses are discussed as analogous to vaccine reactions. - Private sector workers required to vaccinate by employers would likely still be able to claim compensation per the Australian judgment. - Implications of pursuing long COVID or other vaccine injury claims as work-related diseases through ACC are discussed. - References are made to exploring precedents like this Australian judgment more to build confidence arguing similar cases in New Zealand. CONTENT LINKS Section 1 OIA (Official Information Act) request This refers to the process by which individuals can request information from New Zealand government agencies under the Official Information Act 1988 https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/official-information/oia-guidance-for-agencies/ Section 2 Shepherd v The State of South Australia (in right of the Department for Child Protection) [2024] SAET 2 https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SAET/2024/2.html Emergency Management Act 2004 (South Australia) This is the legislation under which COVID directions were issued in South Australia https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/ Equivalent to NZ COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 This legislation authorized public health orders in NZ. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0012/latest/LMS344134.html Section 3 Section 32A Emergency Management Act 2004 - Protection from liability—COVID-19 https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/s32a.html Section 5 Emergency Management Act 2004 - Interaction with other Acts (1) Subject to this section, this Act is in addition to and does not limit, or derogate from, the provisions of any other Act. (2) Where the provisions of this Act are inconsistent with any other Act or law, this Act prevails to the extent of the inconsistency. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ema2004190/s5.html Section 34 COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 - Protection of persons acting under authority of this Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0012/latest/LMS344210.html Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 - Protection of persons acting under authority of Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1956/0065/121.0/DLM308498.html South Australian Public Health Act 2011 https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/c/a/south%20australian%20public%20health%20act%202011/current/2011.21.auth.pdf Statutes Amendment (COVID-19 Permanent Measures) Act 2021 https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/__legislation/lz/v/a/2021/statutes%20amendment%20(covid-19%20permanent%20measures)%20act%202021_25/2021.25.un.pdf RTW Act (Return to Work Act, South Australia): Criteria for work-related injuries. https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/RETURN%20TO%20WORK%20ACT%202014.aspx Section 5 & 6 CSN v Royal District Nursing Service New Zealand Limited https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/2022-NZEmpC-123-CSN-v-Royal-District-Nursing-Service-NZ-Ltd-jud-110722.pdf Accident Compensation Act 2001 (New Zealand): Sections 6 and 25. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/DLM100904.html OF INTEREST Employment Law Updates with Liz Lambert and Erika Whittome – with Emanual Garcia https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/p/employment-law-updates-with-liz-lambert?r=19j3sj COVID-19 Directions - South Australian Legislation https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/legislation/CV19 Quiz bot: https://poe.com/s/2Lv84YwJIJpdbQR9mUVd

This was a fantastic N8 zoom with Liz. One of Liz's open sentences says it all When The State Goes Rouge Thats a Very Dangerous Situation Every Act of Parliament is like a cage - They keep public sector bureaucrats chained and shackled. This is what is meant by "Application" of an Act The America constitution came out of the British state going rouge on them. America was a British colony and bled it of resources and so and the people got angry about that. The first article of their constitution - we are all equal under the law - is basically the same throughout the western world. The English revolution - Devine Right of Kings - George III was King when America became USA. Our BoRA contains codified rights from all our ancient rights. The are based on ancient proverbs For Us The People - Everything That Is Not Forbidden is Allowed but for the People that Administer the law which is the Crown - Everything That is Not Allowed is Forbidden BoRA rights are individual rights not group rights We discuss Fluoride, lockdowns where pushed through using BoRA Sec 5 High Court jurisdiction in employment matters Employment cases that went to the High Court - Butler Case is CIV-2011-404-923, 18 August 2011 High Court, Auckland - Why in the High Court? Book - Bill of Rights Act New Zealand - Rishworth and Others - Canadian cases are quoted BoRA applying to employment contracts? BoRA Sec 3a & 3b - We deep dive in to this - Function and most importantly - Duty Canada - they have something similar Public Duty in BoRA Sec 3b - What is the duty of the employer in the public sector, the DHB, Minister of Health, Universities etc etc Employment Case - GF & Controller of Customs - Judge talks about Tikanga as window dressing. Shane Kinley refers to this saying employers could just go ahead and not look at the safety of the vax. - A great review of this case There is heaps more in this zoom - A definite must watch!!! Thanks Liz! Timeline show notes: Section 1 – 00:00:0) - The episode discusses how everything is allowed under law unless it is explicitly forbidden. - Reminder of a legal maxim from a previous zoom; A senior English judge, Sir John Laws, stated the principles as: "For the individual citizen, everything which is not forbidden is allowed; but for public bodies, and notably government, everything which is not allowed is forbidden." This poses a problem if the law itself has issues. - Every act of Parliament controls a regulator, like cages to keep the state chained, as an unchecked state can act dangerously. - The American Constitution came out of the British state overstepping with the colonies by treating them like a money pot and denying them representation/rights they had in Britain. The cry of the Boston Tea Party. Tensions had been growing for years over issues like taxation without representation. The colonies were taxed by the British but had no seats in Parliament. - A state is a sovereign political entity that has internal and external sovereignty. It is self-governing. A colony, on the other hand, does not have sovereignty and is governed by an external colonial power. - New Zealand is not a colony. - The Declaration of Independence listed 27 complaints against the British colonial administration overstepping. Article 1 lays the foundation for the codified constitution. - The declaration outlined the natural and legal rights of the colonists and charges against King George III that justified revolution and independence. This included tyrannical acts and refusing consent of legislation. - Natural/divine rights like life, liberty, punishments trace back to English common law maxims developed over time from religious texts. - English common law also formed maxims of law, they are like proverbs. - As long as something is not forbidden by statute, it is lawful. But those administering the law (the Crown) can modify rights if deemed acceptable in a free democracy per the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990. - New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Protects individual rights and freedoms in NZ. However, Section 5 allows rights to be limited if deemed reasonable in a free and democratic society. However, it's been tested lately re lockdowns and fluoride in public water supply. Section 2 – 00:12:11 - There has been pushback on workers' rights cases going to the High Court instead of the Employment Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over employment matters. - In the Yardley case, the judge acknowledged workers' right to retain employment may fall under the Bill of Rights Act Section 28 but couldn't analyse it fully as it was in the High Court. - Two cases, Butler v Shepherd (2013) and Mighty River Power, were discussed in the appeal for Turners freedom of speech case. Butler involved an employee suing the University of Auckland (state agent) in the High Court over an alleged section 11 Bill of Rights violation from his dismissal. - The judge said employment issues belong in the Employment Court/Authority. Academic writings (Rishworth. et.al) at the time also argued the Bill of Rights didn't apply to employment contracts due to the “functionality” argument related to Section 3B of the Act. - The university's actions could fall under 3(b) as a state function, but the case still belonged in the Employment Court. - The discussion questions where the line is between public law rights that judicial review applies to, and employment rights that belong in the specialised employment jurisdiction. Section 3 – 00:22:11 - Section 3(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act concerns limiting the power of the state by binding the executive, judicial and legislative branches in their functions. Bookmark Trudeau and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms equivalent. - Section 3(b) applies to "any person or body" performing "any public function, power or duty" conferred by law. This could include the CEO of a council or water authority. - Think about the word “application” as “who is bound and shackled” - In Butler v Shepherd, the judge focused on the university's "function" rather than its public "duty" as an employer in the public sector to employ people to do the work. - As an employer, the public sector body has a duty to employ people lawfully and not breach their rights. This was overlooked in favour of arguments from a commentary that said employment contracts fall outside the Bill of Rights. - Liz analyses how Section 3(b) should properly be applied to public bodies and individuals acting in an official/employment capacity conferred by law, like the university chancellor, rather than focusing solely on institutional "functions". - Liz explain the difference in how "or" and "and" are used in Acts - "or" makes each option separate, while "and" means both things joined by "and" must be met together for that section to apply. This distinguishes their meaning in terms of applying and interpreting the laws. - Examples given of public bodies include councils, water authorities, the Ministry/DHBs, and how Section 3B binding applies to their conferred duties as much as functions. - Putting fluoride in water was a public function imposed on councils by Dr Ashley Bloomfield in his prior role as Director-General of Health. However, this decision was later overturned. - Section 3B binding on public functions, powers, duties conferred by law on such bodies/employers in the public sector. - Focus should be on public duties as employers, not just "functions" as overlooked in Butler v Shepherd judgment relying on a textbook. Liz didn’t have time to argue that in the 10 pages. Section 4 – 00:30:18 - The case of GF v Comptroller of Customs NZ was important as it discussed tikanga Māori and the employer's duty to be a “good employer”. The case and chief Judge Ingles of the employment court gained notoriety by talking about Tikanga. - The GF case is discussed as an example where an employer's risk assessment around vaccination was deemed inadequate by the Employment Court during an appeal - The employer claimed to follow tikanga but didn't understand it. All employees, Māori and non-Māori, must be treated equally under tikanga in contracts. - The link between public law and employment law is the employer's duty under the Public Service Act to be a good employer and follow Treaty principles. Being a good employer is a central concept in employment law, as the employer has responsibility/power over employees. Duties of a good employer include keeping jobs in place where possible and following principles of natural justice. - This suggests public sector employees could claim Bill of Rights protections as the state exercises duties over them. However, previous cases like Butler were influenced by an Rishworth and others academic text focusing only on functions. - The Mighty River Power case involved a union contract incorporating section 11 of Bill of Rights. The court recognised this could apply in employment contracts, but in the end they didn’t win and that was justified under Section 5. - Previous rulings relying on the academic text created “circular reasoning” that now needs re-examining in light of proper consideration of duties alongside functions. - Liz notes academics look at public law as kind of like in an ivory tower. Employment law is kind of a world unto itself as well. - The submissions to the Court of Appeal argue linking public law duties to employment relationships, as per GF v Controller of Customs, could establish Bill of Rights protections for public servants. - Liz further analyses Judge Ingles’ judgment and discusses issues around interpreting and implementing the Treaty, particularly the principles vs direct incorporation, Article 2 vs 3, and representation in political settlements. - Article 3 mean Māori and non-Māori are covered by the common law of England. Section 5 – 00:43:12 - Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi, which refers to chieftain roles, is seen as divisive as it focuses on a historical relationship rather than modern issues. It has benefited those involved in Treaty settlements. Discussion on treaty settlement acts. - Past issues with "elites" or kings in England led to reforms establishing modern legal and governance systems based on the rights of individuals. - Americans rejected continued rule from England and established their own democratic country, returning the discussion to the it started. - Summing up and analysing previous cases like GF and Butler that were influenced by academic texts rather than proper consideration of public duties. - Silence can be as problematic as lies if important issues are not openly discussed. Liz advises “If there's a case that's holding things up, you go find the loopholes in it, you find the arguments in it. - Reminder of last weeks zoom to watch re accredited employers and liability for vax work injuries. - Section 3B of the NZ Bill of Rights Act is seen as the key legal basis for extending protections to public servants. Liz’s legal hook. CEOs that gave exemptions without designations. - Employers claiming to follow orders may not escape liability, as anything not expressly allowed is disallowed under the maxim that what is not included is excluded. - Recent ERA cases found third parties were not controlling employers who terminated members, opening them up to direct liability rather than passing blame to others. No passing the buck. Breach of contract claims may also help overcome PG’s. Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Act 2019. Section 6 – 00:55:43 - OPEN CHAT - Novak Djokovic lost in the Australian Open semifinals, though it was notable he made it that far at age 36 without being vaccinated. Tennis players often peak in their early 20’s and deal with injuries by their early 30s. - Erika was praised for "fighting the good fight" through advocating for legal issues. It's important to maintain graciousness even when strongly advocating. - Due Process of Law Act 1368 - The Canadian trucker protests case found Trudeau's government overstepped by freezing protesters' bank accounts, deemed unconstitutional and impinging civil liberties. Ultra vires. - This weakened the "dam" of what governments can get away with, potentially impacting New Zealand. NZ courts reference Canada more than the US. - Many lack historical knowledge and see anything pre-their lifetime as irrelevant. But history informs legal issues. - Professors' opinions don't always reflect practical legal experiences of arguing cases in court. - Geoffrey Palmer was involved in Treaty/Waitangi legal frameworks but his combining politics and law was questioned. - Upcoming Platform discussion with Michael Laws and Gary Judd about Treaty principles and lawyers' representation of clients could be interesting. - Overall progress could be made through the courts focusing on Article 3's protections for all. CONTENT LINKS Section 1 The maxim "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" - Link to Wikipedia article on this maxim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed Boston Tea Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party Maxims of Law https://constitutionwatch.com.au/maxims-of-law/ British North America Act 1867 (later renamed Constitution Act, 1867) Established Canada's constitution. This was mentioned as an example of another country with a Charter of Rights like Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1867 Declaration of Independence (US): Listed 27 complaints of King George III's administration overstepping its authority over the colonies. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript English common law Developed maxims and proverbs around natural rights that formed the basis of laws and constitutions over time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Protects individual rights and freedoms in NZ. However, Section 5 allows rights to be limited if deemed reasonable in a free and democratic society. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html Constitution of the United States Codified rights and separation of powers, coming out of issues with the British colonial administration over the colonies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution Statute law: Laws passed by legislature as written in statutes. It is allowed unless explicitly forbidden by statute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_law Section 2 Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler v Martin Shepherd Hc Ak https://nz.vlex.com/vid/jesse-waiariki-temanava-butler-793537537 Electrical Union 2001 Incorporated, Dean Gregory Cowell V And Mighty River Power Limited https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/assets/2013-NZEmpC-197-Electrial-Union-2001-Inc-and-Anor-v-Mighty-River-Pow.pdf Section 3 (b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Application (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224799.html Section 5 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Justified limitations Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM225501 Section 11 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM225509 Section 28 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - Other rights and freedoms not affected https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM225531.html The New Zealand Bill of Rights / by Paul Rishworth ... [et al.] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-new-zealand-bill-of-rights-9780195583618?cc=au&lang=en& Section 4 Articles 2 & 3 of The Treaty of Waitangi https://www.archives.govt.nz/discover-our-stories/the-treaty-of-waitangi/what-te-tiriti-o-waitangi-says-in-english-and-te-reo-maori#s3-read-what-te-tiriti- Section 14 Public Service Act 2020 - Crown’s relationships with Māori https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/whole.html#LMS356875 Section 73 Good employer duties http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/whole.html#DLM7830953 GF v COMPTROLLER OF THE NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMS SERVICE [2023] NZEmpC 101 [30 June 2023] https://employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-101-GF-v-Comptroller-of-Customs-Judgment.pdf Treaty settlements: Legislation such as Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Act 2014 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0007/latest/whole.html Section 5 Employment Relations (Triangular Employment) Amendment Act 2019 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0036/latest/whole.html https://www.employment.govt.nz/about/employment-law/employment-relations-triangular-employment-amendment-act/ Section 6 Due Process of Law Act 1368 https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/dpola136842e3c3219/notes.html Canadian trucker protests: Canadian Courts Rule Use of Emergencies Act Unjustified https://rumble.com/v4a4hyo-canadian-courts-rule-use-of-emergencies-act-unjustified.html Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975: Established Waitangi Tribunal: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/DLM435368.html Michael Laws & Gary Judd: Comments on representing clients and Treaty principles: https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/01/michael-laws-chats-to-gary-judd-kc.html Quiz bot https://poe.com/s/BvWzxBua04gmcsf5bRw4

This is a fantastic zoom - Liz talks HSWA S199 and the need to report all and any infectious diseases to an Officer of Health and then Worksafe would need to investigate - Did this Happen? No!! Number 8's clever OIAs reveal what actually happened. Great work team! Liz also takes us through her discoveries around ACC, ACC Accredited businesses and how this has great potential to open the door to the vax injured claiming against the bosses that coerced their loyal and hardworking employees to take an experimental medical treatment. TIMELINE Section 1 – 00:00:00 - The US court judgment is discussed which found that the Department of Labor (equivalent to WorkSafe NZ) lacked authority to impose vaccine mandates in workplaces. - The judgment noted the OSHA Act addresses public health more generally, outside of OSHA's expertise. Similarly, WorkSafe NZ's expertise is workplace safety not public health. - However, vaccine mandates were framed as a workplace issue to maximize vaccination numbers, "really shonky". - An OIA request was sent to WorkSafe NZ on July 5th 2021 asking how many COVID-19 notifications they received since December 2019 under Section 199 of the HSWA. - Section 199 requires notifiable work-related diseases to be reported to the regulator, WorkSafe NZ. - COVID-19 was declared an infectious and notifiable disease in New Zealand on June 28th 2020 by order of the Governor General. Order in council. Explanatory note. - Liz discusses requested information from WorkSafe NZ under the Official Information Act about COVID-19 notifications received under section 199 of the Health and Safety at Work Act from December 2019 to July 2023. - WorkSafe responded that they had received 23 COVID-19 notifications total over that time period. - For COVID-19 to be dealt with as a workplace hazard it would have to be reported as arising in the workplace. Which it did not. - The notifications came from 5 sources – Hawkes Bay district health board, two education institutions, a healthcare provider, and an unknown PCBU location at Greenlane Hospital. - All notifications except the one from Greenlane Hospital were acknowledged with no further action taken, suggesting WorkSafe did not investigate. - The Greenlane notification was referred to an assessment team, indicating some action was taken in that case. - Liz notes with a breach of contract case came a new direction re ACC. Notes that if COVID vaccines caused injuries or deaths there could be options for claim. - Discussion starts on "accredited employers," which provide compensation directly to injured employees rather than going through ACC. Section 2 – 00:17:21 - Liz discusses the website and accredited employer program which allows large employers to directly manage workplace injury claims for their employees rather than going through ACC. - To be eligible, employers must have an annual payroll over $250k and demonstrate health and safety experience. - Benefits for employers include potentially saving up to 90% on WorkSafe levies and having more control over claims management and return to work. - NOTE: Risks include being financially responsible for any serious lifetime claims, and costs could exceed ACC levies if claims are not well-managed. - People who have had ACC claims for vaccine injuries turned down. - It is noted that claims rejected by ACC leave few options for recourse. Others who didn't claim may never be heard from as well. - An example is given of someone who was not required by his employer to get vaccinated but chose to in order to attend his wedding. - ACC is rejecting claims by treating vaccine injuries as blood disorders rather than one-time injuries from forceful injection, as they should be viewed. - ACC has previously rejected repetitive strain injuries like those suffered by hairdressers, supermarket workers etc. claiming they are not work-related. - EAP instead of ACC coverage, so workers should be able to claim. Six years available to claim. Liz is looking forward to these cases. - It is speculated there may be future cases brought by dependents/estates of those injured or killed by vaccines they were coerced into getting. - Criticism of ACC's rejection of vaccine injury claims and comparisons are drawn to other rejected injury types to argue cases could be made. - Examples of accredited employers discussed include Woolworths NZ, Placemakers, Ports of Auckland, University of Auckland, various retirement villages and food companies. - Claim administrators discussed for some employers are Howden Care and WorkAon, a large insurance broker. - Universities like Otago and Waikato are noted as self-managing their own claims. - Even ACC itself directly manages claims for its own employees through the accredited employer program. - Finding out details of specific accredited employers and claim administrators could provide more insight into how the system operates. Section 3 – 00:35:29 - Injury management companies are discussed, as well as other major accredited employers like Auckland Council, Ashwood Park Lifecare, BestStart Educare, Farmers Transport, Fire and Emergency NZ. - Fletcher Building companies like Fletcher Concrete, Future Construction are also mentioned. Foodstuffs groups like New World and Countdown/SuperValue. - Transport companies like Mainfreight and Freightways. Construction companies like Fulton Hogan (mandated their work area.) Dairy company Fonterra. - Government organizations like NZ Defence Force, NZ Police, NZ Post, NZ Rugby Union, NZ Steel are accredited. - It is noted that almost every major company seems to be accredited, raising the question of who isn't involved. “we don't get much information how they're going to limit their liability because they're definitely not supposed to be reinsuring on this stuff.” - Benefits to employers are discussed, with an example given of one company saving $115k annually through the program. - ACC levy accounts are outlined, including the Work Account paid by employers, Earners Account paid by employees, Non-Earners Account from taxes, and Treatment Injury Account drawing from both. - It is suggested injured students may have breach of contract claims against universities for vaccine mandates. Potential for ACC claims for vaccine injuries is also discussed. Section 4 – 00:51:30 OPEN CHAT - Geoff provides his views on the discussion topics covered. - He notes WorkAon is referenced as a claims administrator, and shares a past experience where an manager had no knowledge of public liability insurance or personal injury claims. - Unfairness is discussed around ACC levies, where high-risk and low-risk drivers pay the same rates. - Managing their own claims could expose accredited employers to liability from employee claims. - The ultimate goal is to expose the "nefarious carry on" and influence of large companies and insurers rather than harm employers directly. - Money lost through professional negligence like a bank could be argued as "property damage" covered by public liability policies. - An example is given of a man losing $100k due to bank negligence only being offered $2k to drop a complaint. - Other organizations like NZTA are subject to consumer laws like the Fair Trading Act, which could apply to infringement notices. - Recent examples are discussed of banks mis-selling financial products and investment advice causing losses. - Overall it highlights flaws in the system benefiting large entities at the expense of consumers and how test cases could challenge this. Section 5 – 00:58:39 - OPEN CHAT - A movie called "Leave the World Behind" is mentioned, about a scenario where communication shutdowns occur and no one can connect. It's related to ideas promoted by the World Economic Forum. - Another upcoming movie called "Civil War" is mentioned, about a coming civil war rather than the U.S. Civil War. - Massachusetts asking residents to house illegal immigrants is briefly discussed. - Recent U.S. news about vaccine injury documents being released in court is mentioned. - Trump winning 98 of 99 counties in Iowa is noted. - The movie "Free Guy" is recommended as lighter viewing. - Heatwaves affecting parts of New Zealand are mentioned. - An upcoming hui is noted but Luxon will not attend, while Seymour may attend. Peters' attendance is uncertain. CONTENT LINKS Section 1 Section 199 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Discusses the requirement to report work-related notifiable diseases to WorkSafe New Zealand: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5977194.html Schedule 1 Part 1 Section B of the Health Act 1956. Novel coronavirus was added to Schedule 1 as a notifiable infectious disease under this Act: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1956/0065/latest/whole.html#DLM305649 Orders in Council Two relevant Orders in Council were mentioned - one adding COVID-19 as a notifiable disease, and another related to the Employment Relations Act: Infectious and Notifiable Diseases Order (No 2) 2020 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2020/0031/latest/whole.html ERA 2000 -Schedule 3A - Provisions relating to COVID-19 vaccinations https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/LMS606875.html Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) ACC is mentioned as the state insurer that would cover any COVID vaccine injuries or deaths. https://www.acc.co.nz/ Accredited Employers Accredited employers directly cover work injuries rather than going through ACC: https://www.acc.co.nz/home/search?Search=accredited+employers&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/understanding-your-cover-options/find-an-accredited-employer/ https://www.acc.co.nz/covid-19/businesses/covid-19-information-for-accredited-employers/#cover-for-covid-19 Section 2 Accident Compensation Act 2001 (New Zealand) This Act provides for workplace injury compensation through ACC. It is mentioned employers under the accredited employer program manage claims directly rather than relying on ACC: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/whole.html WorkSafe New Zealand WorkSafe New Zealand is referenced in relation to health and safety standards accredited employers must meet: https://worksafe.govt.nz/ Accredited Employers Programme (AEP) The main programme discussed. More information on eligibility requirements and how it operates: ACC Work Accounts/Levies Accredited employers can save up to 90% on ACC work levies: https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/understanding-your-cover-options/accredited-employers-programme/ Section 3 Section 191 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Discussed in relation to potential challenges to vaccine mandates using section 191 designations: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/whole.html#DLM5977182 ACC coverage accounts More details on the Work, Earners, Non-Earners and Treatment Injury levy accounts: https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/understanding-levies-if-you-work-or-own-a-business/ Fair Trading Act 1986 Discussed in relation to organizations like NZTA: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0121/latest/whole.html Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 May relate to issues of bank negligence: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0091/latest/whole.html Quiz bot https://poe.com/N8_Ep104_quiz

Tonight Liz goes into detail about Jurisdiction - some of the history, how the different courts may or may not have jurisdiction in certain matters and cases. How things work in the US compared to NZ. OSHA ruling that the executive had no legal right to mandate workers which is the same here it just hasn't made it through the courts yet! People got tangled up with judicial reviews and so on The three branches of govt and how that influences things Plus as always there's a ton of information in our amazing N8 zooms. Then we take a look at a brand new Number 8 Rumble Quiz using a special bot which our Anzac N8er has crafted from the Rumble transcripts and Index document - Awesome fun and a very interesting process! Timeline contents: 1 – 00:00:00 - The main speaker is Liz Lambert, president of the Number 8 Workers’ Union of New Zealand. - The discussion introduces the topic of jurisdiction - its meaning in legal contexts and importance in courts. It can refer to authority or lack thereof depending on perspective. - Jurisdiction determines which courts and authorities can hear certain types of cases, like employment institutions for employee matters. Coverage under the Whistle blowers Act 2022 and/or the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 is available for some contractors, volunteers, defence force and police employees. - MPs don’t have the employee coverage and should be bought into the employment as defendants. Typically, cases ended up in district and high court, but Liz states the employment institutions had proper jurisdiction over such matters according to employment law. - How does a country get jurisdiction regarding the court system? Countries usually gain jurisdiction through establishing sovereignty, occupation or war. - In New Zealand's case, sovereignty was transferred via the Treaty of Waitangi from Māori federation of chiefs to Britain in 1840. - The most common way for a country to gain jurisdiction is through war and invasion. - In 1066, William the Conqueror invaded England from Normandy, bringing a new political/legal system of Norman rule and Frankish laws like feudalism. - He defeated the existing Anglo-Saxon kings and their tribes who had ruled parts of England previously. - Similarly, the US gained jurisdiction from Britain through the Revolutionary War of 1774 where they fought for independence from British rule. - After winning wars of conquest/independence, the new ruling powers brought their own laws and political systems, but often retained elements of the previous laws. This is apparent regarding the US with their constitution. - After centuries of evolution following the Norman conquest, the English monarchy had become a constitutional monarchy by the time of the present royal family, placing limitations on absolute royal power through separation of governing powers. - Both the US and Commonwealth countries like NZ adopted the English common law tradition and three-branch government model from Britain as the foundation of their legal frameworks. 2 – 00:07:20 Liz discusses the separation of powers between the three branches of government - executive, legislative, judicial - which was instituted to prevent tyranny. - In 1649, England and Ireland and the dominions thereof became a republic for 10 years known as the Interregnum period between kings. Then the Restoration in 1660. - In 1688, the British implemented their first codified constitution while retaining prior common laws from before 1066. Magna Carta and 1275 based on the older laws. 1275 is of the Imperial enactments in force in New Zealand under the Imperial Laws Application Act 198. - Over time, the executive branch has come to dominate the other branches in both NZ and the US. - The discussion of the US, NZ and English common law is to explain the relevance of the OSHA key US Supreme Court rulings around Biden's COVID workplace mandates from January 2022. The court found as a matter of fact that COVID is not a workplace hazard covered under acts like the US Occupational Safety and Health Act or New Zealand's equivalent Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. - Parallels are drawn between the acts and protections for workers to refuse dangerous work while still receiving pay, showing similarities in the legal approaches of both countries. NZ is section 83. 3 – 00:14:40 - Criticism of newer NZ lawyers not thinking independently and potentially relying too much on AI for essays. - The three branches/arms of government are: courts and police enforce laws; executive/crown (Governor General, PM, cabinet & ministry, public service); and parliament who makes laws. They are meant to have checks and balances. The public service sector is the largest, with many potentially held to ransom. - Recalling the last zoom where Judith Collins’ speech is discussed regarding her saying basically Parliament had let the executive start doing the law making around covid. - Without section 191 designations, the enforcers lacked legal authority under health and safety laws, as proper designation is required for enforcement powers. - Reminder that Nash the police minister got the sack Nash for contacting the Police Commissioner to suggest he appeal a court judgement. That's a breach of the Cabinet Manual as ministers aren't meant involve themselves with the courts. - While politicians are elected, they and the branches of government are meant to serve the people non-politically by obeying the nonpartisan rule of law. As no one is above the law, the English common law sits above the three branches, providing impartial jurisdiction. - Discussion of two instances where Jurisdiction is important. First in the Amanda Turner case where the employment authority should have had sole authority, not the district court. Second is a case of where the plaintiff took his case to self-represent in district court instead of the employment authority. He didn’t win, the judge had a whole lot to say about whether he could use the Bill of Rights Act, Liz says the judge got it wrong, additionally had no jurisdiction as the case was in the wrong court. Not mentioned in the zoom, but the case referenced is Butler v Shephard [2011] HC AK. - The US system also has three branches with courts potentially most powerful as they rely on the constitution. Police get elected so may be part of the executive. - In the US vaccine mandate dispute, courts asserted supremacy over the executive branch due to separation of powers principles. Biden's mandate exceeded the Department of Labor's authority since Congress had not amended labour law to allow mandatory vaccination requirements in workplaces. 4 – 00:24:50 - New Zealand has yet to see high court challenges over vaccine mandates. While judicial reviews aim to evaluate ministerial orders, courts often find the orders were reasonably signed off without scrutinising specific applications. U.S. focuses on authority - the President's mandate exceeded congressional labor law. The OSHA Act and employment law require workplace orders comply with health and safety statutes. Congress traditionally holds most power, but courts assert control too. The crown and presidents party (U.S.) have been pushing other branches around. By comparison, the established principles and precedents within common law provide a stable framework above partisan politics. - Liz discusses that English common law has administered key precedents like ending slavery in 1807 and conducting the Nuremberg trials. - Whilst serfdom (economic slavery) existed, chattel slavery did not under English common law. Liz mentions a case of a U.S. slave who jumped ship and regarding the right of an enslaved person on English soil not to be forcibly removed from the country. The mentioned case is Somerset v Stewart [1772] which affirmed English law did not recognise slaves as a legal status or slaves as property. See link for more on the abolition of chattel slavery https://poe.com/s/ecPLUrDpqgzqwx5LnhbR 5 – 00:30:23 Quiz bot exploration re episode 102 CONTENT LINKS Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, Schedule 1, Imperial enactments in force in New Zealand, Constitutional enactments https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1988/0112/latest/DLM135091.html Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler v Martin Shepherd Hc Ak https://nz.vlex.com/vid/jesse-waiariki-temanava-butler-793537537 Section 3 (b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Application (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224799.html Discussion on the Butler case – Matter of Jurisdiction - Ep.96 - 20231129 (W) War on the Wokesters https://rumble.com/v3ynzuh-e-96-n8-wed-29th-nov-23-wednesday-war-wokesters.html Somerset v Stewart (1772) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart http://www.commonlii.org/int/cases/EngR/1772/57.pdf Take the session quiz! Enjoy https://poe.com/N8_Ep103_quiz

Join us For Our Latest Rumble!!! 2024 Pushback Campaigns How You Can Join Our Warriors The Time is Upon Us! https://rumble.com/v45c5s9-ep-102-n8-2024-pushback-campaigns-join-our-warriors-fri-5th-jan-23.html Tonight Liz takes us through now Attorney General Judith Collin’s clip on YT where Judith speaks about ministries, such as MoH, are creating legislation without them having any law training or legal right to draft. Legislation states that this must be done by the parliamentary law office. This is likely being pushed Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment When you take even a brief look at what has been happening it is clear the parliament if being held to ransom by the public service!! Liz shows the connection to HSWA and Health Act 1956 Another stunning lesson in law not to be missed! Judith clip https://youtu.be/4_gRzeLvybU?si=YMC9G63vjftx63nO TIMELINE 1 – 00:00:00 Liz is recapping a previous zoom call from December about legal challenges and pushbacks related to Covid legislation. - A clip is played of Judith Collins, former Attorney General, criticizing Covid legislation for not being properly scrutinized and drafted by ministries instead of the proper legal offices. Under the Legislation Act 2019, it's always got to be the Parliamentary Council office. - Collins says the legislation was drafted like communications material instead of proper legal documents. It used vague terms and was not up to proper standards. - Liz agrees with criticisms and believes cases will find the legislation exceeded legal authority, especially around vaccine mandates in workplaces. - Subpart 1 - Drafting and publishing legislation – Section 69 (1)(c) and 69 (2), Legislation Act 2019 - PCO must publish all legislation - Previous submissions argued the proper authorizing legislation was the Health Act 1956, not what was used, and that law does not allow mandatory medical procedures under section 92. Secondary legislation (orders) were prioritized over settled law. Section 92 I (5) Health Act 1956- in no case was a person to be vaccinated without their informed consent - Upcoming court cases are expected to further challenge the legitimacy of the pandemic response legislation and enforcements. The discussion recaps legal arguments that will be used. 2 – 00:14:25 – Liz introduces a 1937 case called Victoria Park Raceway that discusses property rights and the legal concept of nuisance. - The plaintiff in the case was Victoria Park Racing, who owned land used as a racecourse. The defendant Taylor owned nearby land and erected a platform where his friend Angles could watch the races. - Angles would then vividly describe and broadcast the races over the radio station, which some people preferred to listening to instead of attending the races themselves. - Victoria Park Racing argued this was a nuisance affecting their use and enjoyment of their land, and an "unnatural use" of Taylor's land. - However, the court found the defendants had not interfered with the use of Victoria Park's land. Their actions merely made the plaintiff's business less profitable by providing a competing form of entertainment. - Liz notes this was a common law case exploring rights and precedents, not focused on being "new" law. It demonstrates established legal principles can apply regardless of changing times. The summary cuts off the speaker's additional comments. 3 – 00:25:10 – The 1937 case found that the defendants did not interfere with the plaintiff's land or enjoyment of it. The broadcast only affected those not on the land by providing alternative entertainment. - It was argued the maxim "use your own property in such a manner as not to injure another's" did not apply, as no right was violated or wrong done by the broadcast descriptions. - Maxim "sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas" - Meaning "use your own property in such a manner as not to injure another's". - Notes this established there is no general principle that one is liable for damage caused to another by their own act if able to justify it. - Reference is made to employment law and whistleblower protections. It is argued the descriptions did not violate laws around defamation, offensive language, contracts or confidential information. - Whistleblower acts allow protected disclosures of serious wrongdoing to employers and regulators. Previous cases have found these protections can apply to employees revealing company information. - The discussion touches on whether contractual or copyright issues could limit descriptions, but whistleblower principles may override these regarding health and safety issues. - Section 14 allows further disclosure if the initial receiver did not properly address the wrongdoing - Liz briefly discusses finding some whistleblower cases potential cases, tbc 4 – 00:36:35 – Liz refers to a past case involving a woman who worked for Waikato and disclosed information to the standards authority. She was found to be a protected whistleblower. - No specifics are provided about the case details, but it may have involved concerns about how degrees/diplomas were being scrutinized or marks reported. - The speaker notes there are around 157 whistleblower cases that could be analysed to extract legal principles, but they have not had time to review many yet. - The main points of focus will be arguing there was no authority for Covid legislation/orders under Section 191of the Health Safety Work Act 2015, and asserting strong whistleblower protections so employees cannot be fired for whistleblowing, especially in the public sector. - Whistleblowing will be used as a "weapon" and "fine art" this year to help push back against corruption. Past cases showed even delayed disclosures can still be defended. - In general, the discussion reviews using whistleblower laws and principles from past cases to strategically protect disclosures, with the goal of increasing transparency and accountability, particularly regarding government/public bodies. CONTENT LINKS Section 67 Legislation Act 2019 - Subpart 1 - Drafting and publishing legislation https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0058/latest/DLM7298343.html#DLM7298343 Section 69 (1)(c) and 69 (2), Legislation Act 2019 - PCO must publish all legislation https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2019/0058/latest/DLM7298353.html Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor [1937] HCA 45; (1937) 58 CLR 479 (26 August 1937) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Park_Racing_%26_Recreation_Grounds_Co_Ltd_v_Taylor https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1937/45.html https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1937/45.pdf The Use of Maxims in Jurisprudence https://www.jstor.org/stable/1322311?seq=1 Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022: Current New Zealand law protecting whistleblowers from reprisals. It came into force in July 2022. Section 3 – The purpose Section 7 - view the flowchart which gives an overview of how the Act applies to the discloser. Section 8 - Meaning of a disclosure in this act. Section 9 - Meaning of protected disclosure Subpart 2 - To whom disclosures can be made Sections regarding requirements for receivers of disclosures and protections for whistleblowers. Section 11 (3) - A discloser is entitled to protection for a protected disclosure made to an appropriate authority at any time. Section 13 - Guidance: what receiver should do Section 14 - Guidance for receivers of disclosures Section 16 - Referral of disclosures Section 21 - Prohibition on retaliation Section 22 - No victimisation Section 23 - Immunity from liability Section 29 - Public sector organisations must have internal procedures https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0020/latest/LMS301283.html Section 191 (1), (2) & (3) Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (1)The Prime Minister may designate an agency listed in subsection (3) as a designated agency, having regard to the specialist knowledge of that agency. (2) A designation under subsection (1) must be made by notice in the Gazette (3) The agencies are (a) the chief executive of a department or departmental agency (within the meaning of section 5… https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5977182.html#DLM5977182 Take the quiz and test your knowledge on the content of this meeting. https://poe.com/universal_link_page?handle=N8_Ep102_quiz

An awesome compilation with Liz from three zooms highlighting all the crucial details to take notice of in the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistle Blowers) Act 2022

Tonight Liz takes us through her plan of lawful 'weapons of law' actions Number 8 Union will be using in 2024 to bring justice and accountability in employment cases, small businesses action against Worksafe, help for the jab injured, personal injury claims and how those can be achieved and much more Number 8 WUNZ succeeds where other unions have failed so badly over the last 4 years. Same goes with the large percentage of lawyers. Number 8 has a 'Never Give Up' attitude on behalf of its members 2024 will be an epic year. Failure is not an option We are funded by our members. Please support us as generously as you can. This enables us to grow and offer even more service to our members and the wider caring New Zealand community. Please also support Amanda Turner with her Court of Appeal Freedom of Speech case which is of national importance to all of us And Ants Haines as he takes on Worksafe basically on behalf all businesses that were terribly affected by lockdowns, cvc bs, coercion and threats of fines and the resulting financial and emotional wreckage that followed. Like I said - failure is not an option!! 1 – 00:00:00 – The main speaker is Liz Lambert, president of the Number 8 Workers’ Union of New Zealand. Emma has been compiling videos from their Zoom meeting discussions on exemptions and exceptions to consolidate information. They may make a few more compilations over the holidays. - They plan to push back on issues in 6 areas - whistleblowers vs bosses, employment relations authority/courts, small businesses vs WorkSafe, human rights commission for contractors & volunteers, workers vs agencies & Crown, and supporting injured vaccine recipients. - For whistleblowers, they will argue cases with the Nursing/Midwifery councils using the Employment Relations Act. District courts. Barry could use section s.103 (1)(k) ERA - They routinely use exemptions/exceptions and Acts like the H&S at Work Act in employment authority/court cases. They are also pursuing breach of contract cases. - They will help small businesses understand non-COVID exemption rules but not assist them against union members. - Human rights issues include medical discrimination and religious discrimination complaints. - Complaints have been filed with the Auditor General regarding lack of proper authorities for pandemic response and improper spending. - Injured vaccine recipients may pursue medical misadventure claims against doctors (insurance) and relevant organisations. Group actions could help cover legal costs. Breach of contract cases. 2 – 00:25:26 – Geoff has two reputable lawyers who have acknowledged in writing that his arguments about pursuing non-statute barred personal injury claims through insurance are valid. Tudor Clee lawyer is handling the case of a protester who was kneeled on. - They discuss potential cases around the Crimes of Torture Act 1989, which allows pursuing claims without the Attorney General's approval including in mental hospitals. - In 2024 they plan to further research legal gatekeepers and uncover unknown acts. - Emma is compiling video clips from their Zoom meetings around key themes like Ants Haines, exemptions, designations, the Health and Safety at Work Act, and the Health Act. - Suggested additional themes include the Pfizer contract, the Insurance Act, and the Emergency Preparedness Act. - Discussion to revisit zoom covering the 90’s section of the Health Act 1956. See Ep 24 @33:01 20230301 (W) The Legal Trap Begins to Close,: Overarching principles -92A, 92B, 92C respect for Individuals, 92D Voluntary compliance https://rumble.com/v2ben0w-1st-march-23-n8-the-legal-trap-begins-to-close.html & Ep .75 @ 35:10 https://rumble.com/v3eifcf-ep-75-n8-friday-1st-sept-taking-the-kings-shilling.html - Leaders accountability courts and Chris Wingate. - Interview from Nadine Connock on RCR & NZDSOS - OIA, clause 12A (6) was it a gag order? (6) The Minister may impose conditions on the exemption as the Minister considers necessary. A potential whistleblower is discussed around the conditions placed on section 12A health worker exemptions. - Production value and removing off-topic sections from videos is discussed to help share compilations. - Zooms may reduce to once weekly until ramping back up after the holidays. 3 – 00:33:49 – OPEN CHAT - Liz is finding it difficult to relax during the holidays and keeps waking up early, thinking about the day's tasks. - A PDF of 100 episodes has been posted. - Chants are suggested for pushback and payback against unspecified entities. - Terrorism acts are mentioned and thinking about context of past legislation. An Act is supposed to right a wrong - Satanic installations on government property in the US are discussed as challenging free speech. Actions to dismantle them are similarly challenging. - The Crimes of Torture Act 1989 is brought up as having potential loopholes. Section 14 allows claims without attorney general approval. - Reports of the act's use should be searched in the NZ Gazette. No past cases have seemed to come to light under whistleblowing acts. - The year 2024 and upcoming "sizzling hot" events are referenced. 4 – 00:42:39 – Geoff W. discovered the NZ Transport Agency is subject to the Fair Trading Act, which could extend to police. Infringement notices may count as unsolicited communications. - Geoff plans to challenge infringement notices under the Fair Trading Act. Crown entities are covered by the Act. - It's suggested this approach could also work against Pfizer using contractual issues. - Concerns are raised about Messenger banning and safety issues, recommending Signal instead. - Content links Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022: Current New Zealand law protecting whistleblowers from reprisals. It came into force in July 2022. Section 3 – The purpose Section 7 - view the flowchart which gives an overview of how the Act applies to the discloser. Section 8 - Meaning of a disclosure in this act. Section 9 - Meaning of protected disclosure Subpart 2 - To whom disclosures can be made Sections regarding requirements for receivers of disclosures and protections for whistleblowers. Section 11 (3) - A discloser is entitled to protection for a protected disclosure made to an appropriate authority at any time. Section 13 - Guidance: what receiver should do Section 14 - Guidance for receivers of disclosures Section 16 - Referral of disclosures Section 21 - Prohibition on retaliation Section 22 - No victimisation Section 23 - Immunity from liability Section 29 - Public sector organisations must have internal procedures https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0020/latest/LMS301283.html Section 103 (1)(k) Employment Relations Act 2000: Provides right to bring personal grievance for retaliation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM60322 Nadine Connock https://realitycheck.radio/the-inquiry-sessions-with-nadine-connock-on-the-pfizer-contract-and-whether-the-government-signed-over-our-national-sovereignty/ https://nzdsos.com/2023/12/23/whistleblower-reaction-pfizer-contract/ Crimes of Torture Act 1989 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0106/latest/DLM192818.html NZ Gazette - 6 notices found containing "Crimes of Torture Act 1989" https://gazette.govt.nz/home/NoticeSearch/?keyword=Crimes+of+Torture+Act+1989&year=&pageNumber=&noticeNumber=&dateStart=&dateEnd=&noticeType=&act= Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5977026.html 90’s section of the Health Act 1956. See Ep 24 @33:01 20230301 (W) The Legal Trap Begins to Close,: Overarching principles -92A, 92B, 92C respect for Individuals, 92D Voluntary compliance https://rumble.com/v2ben0w-1st-march-23-n8-the-legal-trap-begins-to-close.html & Ep .75 @ 35:10 https://rumble.com/v3eifcf-ep-75-n8-friday-1st-sept-taking-the-kings-shilling.html 12A (6) COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order 2021 - Power of Minister to grant exemptions (6) The Minister may impose conditions on the exemption as the Minister considers necessary. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2021/0182/latest/LMS519345.html FROM THE CHAT Geoff W. recommend to check it out!! https://waikanaewatch.org/2023/12/15/from-the-independent-police-conduct-authority-website/

Join us for this N8WUNZ Zoom In on the Whistle Blower Act 2022 Section 23 A short clip thats too good not to share and we would love it you could!! - Lets get this message out there so more whistle blowers speak out!!

Liz explains clause 9 exceptions and 12A exemptions of the Covid legislation which a have always been there in plain sight so why didn't the lawyers see them? The bosses/PCBU relied on them for good legal advice... and the fallout from that is huge! Please give this video a like below and share this video to everyone you know! Please also remember to support Amanda Turner with her case going to the Court of Appeal - This is a freedom of speech case - the decision from which is of National Importance to all of you who value freedom of speech which in particular is freedom of political speech Also support Ants Haines with his case against Worksafe who coerced, harassed and bullied business unlawfully. WS had no authority to impose any kind of fines around C19 legislation alleged infringements, causing many businesses to shut down temporarily losing vital income or to shut down permanently - This has had a huge impact on NZ's economy - Stand Up businesses!!! Please join Number 8 WUNZ even if you do not have an employment case and need our help for that - Donations are very gratefully accepted or join on a quarterly or yearly subscription for less than a coffee a week!! Timeline & Show Notes: 1 – 00:00:00 - The discussion was centered around comments made by Hipkins, a New Zealand official, about vaccines and mandates. - Hipkins stated that no one was forcibly vaccinated, it was a choice. But businesses that chose not to require vaccines ended up laying people off, which he said was on them, not the government. - However, the Liz argues Hipkins framed it as the businesses' choice, not the individual workers' choice. - Legally, the government never mandated vaccines, they kept one step removed by including exemptions in public health orders. - Clause 7 exemptions were the ones that everybody was focused on as workers because those were the ones that workers themselves could go after. And on the 7th November 2021 they were revoked. - Over 11,000 exemptions were granted to workers under 12A clause aka Significant Service Disruption exemptions (SSDs)/operational exemptions. So, businesses had a choice to use exemptions or not. - Non-public sector businesses asked the government for protection if they privately mandated vaccines for workers. - But in reality, no officials like CEOs were actually designated with proper authority to impose vaccine requirements or handle exemptions. So, their actions were unlawful. They had to be designated and under the health, under the Health and Safety Act under Section 191. - US investigations into Fauci. - In this section, the Liz argues the vaccine policies and mandates were improperly implemented both in the public and private sectors due to a lack of proper legal authority. 2 - 00:12:03 - There was a conflation of workplace health and safety laws with public health laws regarding COVID-19. The legislation referred to public health, not workplaces. - The 2020 COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and related regulations were about public health, not workplaces. - Businesses fined by WorkSafe could not be hooked to workplace laws as COVID was a public health issue, not workplace. Fines were tried under old acts but didn't stick. - This caused businesses to be caught in the middle. The My Vaccine Pass system was also voluntary. - Clause 9 of the public health orders included exemptions for businesses from the start. Many employers were unaware or ignored these exemptions. - Not looking at exemptions constitutes bad faith under the Employment Relations Act as it fails to conduct employment in good faith. - The union is arguing past employer actions around vaccines and mandates showed bad faith due to failure to consider exemptions. - Businesses are now in a vulnerable position and the union offers to help them understand the legal issues rather than take cases against individual staff. Businesses could sue WorkSafe. - Exceptions came under original clause 9. - This section focuses on the key legal points around distinguishing public health law from workplace law, issues with fines under wrong laws, obligation to consider exemptions in good faith, and the current position of employers facing fallout from vaccine policies. 3 - 00:22:35 - Clause 9 of the public health orders included exceptions from the beginning for those unable to get vaccinated or it was not practical, like emergency services. This was ignored by many employers. PCBU’s. - Version 3 of the orders in August 2021 introduced clause 12A (Power of Minister to grant exemptions) allowing exemption applications by businesses for employees. Everyone, including health workers, could initially qualify for exemptions but this was later restricted. However, 11,005 health workers still received them. - The process required businesses to apply to the Minister who could request information, but decisions appeared rubber-stamped. Language was vague to allow flexible interpretation. 23 Medicines Act 1981 - Minister may give provisional consent. Pfizer had not done any tests on transmission prevention. - Exemptions were meant to reduce disruption but some question if they were quietly conditioned to be kept private. Was subclause 6 used to gag? - Clause 7A introduced at the same time allowed exemptions for those handling "affected items" which seemed tailored to border cleaners/MIQ workers but wording could also apply to healthcare workers. - Definitions are important but "affected items" and "other needs" were not defined, allowing broad interpretation of who could qualify for exemptions. - The summary focuses on the introduction and wording of key clauses for exceptions and exemptions in the public health orders, and how vague or broad language may have allowed more workers to qualify than intended. 4 - 00:37:45 - Liz questions the validity of "affected persons" under the health orders, as COVID was not a work-related disease. This brings the orders into conflict with the Health and Safety at Work Act. - Clause 7A exemptions could apply to those with physical or "other needs" such as psychological/spiritual needs. Suitably qualified health practitioners could determine vaccination was inappropriate. Perhaps a suitably qualified health practitioner in this instance could be a psychiatrists, psychologists, counselor or chiropractor etc. - Practitioners provided letters but employers often disregarded these and demanded more information. This violates doctor-patient confidentiality. - The 2020 COVID Response Act Section 34 references the protection in Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 for legal liability for actions taken under health legislation/orders. - Section 129 provides protection unless persons acted in "bad faith or without reasonable care." Liz discusses that many employers/health sector refused or failed to acknowledge exemptions, showing bad faith. - Lawyers failed to act accordingly representing clients re the so-called big bad scary non work related health risk - Legal proceedings can only be brought with leave of the High Court, which requires showing substantial grounds the person acted in bad faith or without care. - Liz believes lawsuits can potentially be brought against employers and the health sector/Ministry of Health over unfair treatment of unvaccinated employees. A long legal battle is anticipated. Teachers got cut out of the 12A, whom were called group seven. - Politicians involved in the response who are now in parliament should also be held accountable. The issues discussed have broader social and legal implications. - The summary focuses on analyzing the validity of key terms in the health orders, protections from liability, and potential legal avenues Liz argues exist to pursue consequences for various parties. CONTENT LINKS COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order 2021 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2021/0182/latest/LMS519282.html 12A COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order 2021 - Power of Minister to grant exemptions https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2021/0182/latest/LMS519345.html 23 Medicines Act 1981 - Minister may give provisional consent https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0118/latest/DLM55061.html Section 168 (4) Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 - Powers of entry and inspection (4) Despite subsection (1)(e), if all or any part of the information relates to a person’s health status and identifies the person, an inspector must not, without that person’s consent,— (a) require the production of information; or (b) examine the information; or (c) make a copy of, or take an extract from, the information. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5977151.html Section 34 COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 - Protection of persons acting under authority of this Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0012/latest/LMS344210.html Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 - Protection of persons acting under authority of Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1956/0065/121.0/DLM308498.html See versions of COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2021/0094/24.0/versions.aspx Another of Erika’s OIA’s - Terminated staff due to vaccination status at HRC and vaccination exemptions https://fyi.org.nz/request/24848-terminated-staff-due-to-vaccination-status-at-hrc-and-vaccination-exemptions Mandatory vax (no jab, no job)’ template, and ‘generic bulk response (Dec 2021 template) https://fyi.org.nz/request/24701-mandatory-vax-no-jab-no-job-template-and-generic-bulk-response-dec-2021-template See Erika’s latest OIA status https://fyi.org.nz/user/erika_whittome

Join Us For Our Latest Rumble!! Our 100th Episode Christmas Special 1 – 00:00:00 – The main speaker is Liz Lambert, president of the Number 8 Workers’ Union of New Zealand. This is the 100th+ zoom meeting over the last 2 years discussing worker rights issues. - Liz thanks all those who have watched and supported their efforts, keeping the work relevant. - Discussion highlighting some of the notable guests who have joined zooms over time, including Cheryl, Emma, Erika, Geoff Waterhouse, Steve Oliver, Allan Halse, Ants Haines, Irene and Amanda Turner. - Erika played a key role in pursuing OIAs and setting legal precedents around exemptions. - Around 50 cases have been settled through mediation already, in addition to cases progressing through authorities and courts. - The union has gained important legal knowledge and test cases that will help strengthen future cases. Their work has also led to discoveries around New Zealand's constitution and bill of rights protections. Health and Safety Work Act and the Whistleblowers Act are probably the heroes of 2023. - There will be a short break over Christmas before ramping back up with more authority cases in January. 2 – 00:25:26 – Thanks several guest speakers who have joined the meetings over the last two years, including Brendan and Steph from Lone Star OHS. - Discusses taking a break over Christmas and having court cases resuming in February. Hopes to get an expert witness Chris Lind involved in future cases. - Mentions Sam Picknel potentially joining for employment law cases. Plans to pursue cases around breach of contract, whistleblower protections and challenging health status declarations. - Explaining the difference between unjustified dismissal and disadvantage grievances under the Employment Relations Act. - Discussion on the hierarchy of legislation and that secondary legislation like public health orders cannot override primary acts like the Employment Relations Act. - Robin shares sending a painted necklace as a gift and her experience taking on the Human Rights Commission over council worker issues. - Acknowledges the work of Karen Glass and Dora Smith in researching exceptions and exemptions that helped workers keep their jobs. - So in summary, it touches on past speakers, upcoming legal plans and strategies, debates the relationship between different laws, and acknowledges individuals who have supported the advocacy efforts. 3 – 00:55:12 – A member thanks Liz, Emma and Erika for their help with a mediation. Appreciates their assistance. - Mentions a friend who works in real estate got very sick from not being allowed to work without vaccination. Notes real estate agents are independent contractors. - Discusses a radio interview mentioning New Zealand exemptions and whistleblowers. Texas attorney general plans to sue Pfizer for up to $1 trillion. - Debates the legality of contracts signed by governments with Pfizer and ability to hold them accountable. Notes NZ legislation prevents ministers claiming vaccines are "safe and effective." - Iceland now charging for COVID vaccines and offering incentives like discounts for bringing friends. - Thanks the N8 union for their hard work over the year. Hopes cases will continue in 2023. 4 – 01:14:26 – Discussing Mary Hobbs, a nurse, writer and photographer who wrote about smoking gun data leaks. She was interviewed by Rodney Hyde. - Mention of whistleblowing information being shared. - Suggest having a future zoom to help people prepare timelines of events for legal claims regarding issues from mandates/COVID policies. - General open chat CONTENT LINKS Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022: Current New Zealand law protecting whistleblowers from reprisals. It came into force in July 2022. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0020/latest/LMS301283.html Section 103 (1) (a) Employment Relations Act 2000: Personal grievance https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM60322 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5977026.html Section 142 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Limitation period for actions other than personal grievances No action may be commenced in the Authority or the court in relation to an employment relationship problem that is not a personal grievance more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action arose. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5976660.html OTHER Henry VIII clauses https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2021/2021-NZHC-2526.pdf 3 A “Henry VIII clause” is a provision in delegated legislation such as the Vaccinations Order, authorising the overriding of primary legislation such as an Act of Parliament. See Phillip Joseph: Joseph on Constitution and Administrative Law (5th ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington 2021) at 26.5.1. HENRY VIII CLAUSES: THEIR PLACE IN MODERN NEW ZEALAND https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/6303/paper_access.pdf?sequence=2 Henry VIII clauses & the rule of law – Australia https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Reports-and-Pres-4-11-Henry-VIII-Clauses-the-rule-of-law1.pdf THE USE OF “HENRY VIII CLAUSES” IN QUEENSLAND LEGISLATION https://documents.parliament.qld.gov.au/committees/SLC/1997/Report003.pdf%20 - Excellent download A “Henry VIII clause” is a clause in an Act of Parliament which enables the Act to be amended by subordinate or delegated legislation. FUNDRAISERS Constitutional Freedom of speech Case in NZ – Fundraiser Freedom of speech, our most fundamental freedom has been under attack, especially for the last 3 years. At least, the New Zealand Court of Appeal will hear arguments (Amanda Jean Turner and Te Whatu Ora- Health New Zealand in Respect of the Former District health board CA652/2023. https://www.givesendgo.com/GBB4J Amanda Turner - Fundraiser and info on N8WUNZ website https://number8.org.nz/press-releases-news-updates/ground-breaking-nz-case-constitutional-freedom-of-speech-case/ ANTS HAINES: ‘MY BARBER' OWNER, ROTORUA: ON REFUSING TO CLOSE HIS BUSINESS OR COMPLY WITH COVID VAX PASSES, AND CHALLENGING WORKSAFE OVER $48,000 IN FINES 17 November 2023 https://realitycheck.radio/ants-haines-my-barber-owner-rotorua-on-refusing-to-close-his-business-or-comply-with-covid-vax-passes-and-challenging-worksafe-over-48000-in-fines/ Come help us celebrate the huge in roads we all have made over the last 12 months We want to give Liz a huge thank you for her tireless efforts to support workers and business owners throughout New Zealand Also a massive thank you to Number 8's amazing advocates and admin staff - you know who you are - once again working tirelessly behind the scenes bringing justice to Number 8 Union members. Merry Christmas to all of our wonderful Number 8 Union members and all our dedicated supports and fans - We greatly appreciate your help in getting this vital information out there which enables us to be empowered in the face of adversity and uncertainty Enjoy this wonderful zoom and please share!

Join us for a totally on point zoom where Liz guides us through the powerful protection for Whistle Blowers under the Protected Disclosures Act 2022 and the Employment Relations Act 2000. Very few people know about these weapons of law including most Lawyers! They really need to get up to speed for their client sake if not their own!! We have never needed these Acts more than we do now!!! Bringing these in to action in the courts is our key to stopping the extreme corruption and injuring of our loved ones, friends and family Please watch and share far and wide so more caring kiwis can learn and utilize these powerful tools to bring to a halt the massive wrong doing that is happening around us. Please also watch this from Liz Gunn where she interviews a now ex police office about his efforts over a very long period to have his concerns about the jab and the roll out, the jab injuries and the police response to all of these goings on investigated - All to no avail. https://rumble.com/v40zm3p-dan-picknell-letter-to-nz-police-commissioner.html?mref=s9inf&mrefc=2&fbclid=IwAR2i2KXQYxHFKbBSQHFxf0Z0I2gcweKsLaMPIe2YQWEQEK8XiuySGvnPD1Y TIMELINE 1 – 00:00:20 – Liz discusses the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 in New Zealand, which aims to facilitate whistleblowing and protect whistleblowers. It is modelled after similar laws in other countries like Australia. It is considered only 7% of the population are aware of the Act. Barry Young falls under the category of whistleblower. - In Australia the equivalent is the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 – updating in 2019? - The NZ HSWA 2015 is modelled on the Model Work Act in Australia - Note the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 covers both public and private sector organizations. Public sector orgs have additional responsibilities to make employees aware of the act. - Key section of the Act dissected. Section 3: Purpose. - Controller and Auditor-General is John Ryan who took office on 2 July 2018. Ombudsman. - Section 4: Interpretation. Key definitions are reviewed, including protected disclosure, serious wrongdoing, appropriate authority, and retaliation. - Anyone employed by or contracted to an organization can make a protected disclosure, including volunteers. Disclosures must be made in good faith with reasonable belief of serious wrongdoing. - Serious wrongdoing is broadly defined and includes offenses, health/safety risks, environmental risks, and risks to fair trials or law enforcement. - Specific sections of the act are highlighted for further discussion, including the obligations of public sector orgs and protections for whistleblowers. Barry Young's case is mentioned. - Liz highlights that you don’t have to be a trained lawyer to be able to use the Act. - Liz “so if nurses saw something in the hospitals that they were concerned about, but they were afraid to put out there, this is their time to whistle blow.” - The role of oversight bodies like the Ombudsman is also briefly touched on. Liz plans to take questions and discuss applications to recent issues afterwards. 2 – 00:16:52 – Discussion on ways to open up secrecy around what happened with the public service during the pandemic, noting major figures but wanting whistleblowers from lower levels. - Unlawful, corrupt, or irregular use of public funds is mentioned as something that could be disclosed, referencing the Christchurch City Council and 3 Waters. - Gross mismanagement, oppression, unlawful discrimination, or gross negligence could also be disclosed. - Liz wants to rename it “The Games Up Act.” - Section 11 covers making disclosures to the organization or appropriate authority. Section 13 adds disclosure to an appropriate authority can be made at any time. - Maybe those exempt were made to sign an NDA, but according to Section 23 (2) they will be protected. The NDA will be of no effect. Don’t have to go to the employer, they can go straight to the Ombudsman. - Note the green highlighted sections “or.” - Section 14 allows further disclosure if the initial receiver did not properly address the wrongdoing. Disclosures can then be made to ministers or the Speaker in some cases. - Organisations cannot retaliate against employees for whistleblowing. Sections 20-22 cover obligations to not retaliate or treat employees less favourably due to a protected disclosure. - Barry Young's case is an example of disclosing internally first but still being able to further disclose. The Ministry of Health is criticized for not informing employees of the act's protections. They have not acted appropriately under section 13. - Mayor of Hamilton & Dr Sharma should have used the whistleblowers act - Section 20, it outlines options for whistleblowing, protections from retaliation, and notes the act could be applied to uncover more of what happened during the pandemic response. 3 – 00:28:17 – Section 21 of the Protected Disclosures Act is discussed, regarding retaliation against employees for whistleblowing. - If an employer retaliates, the employee has a personal grievance under Section 103(1)(k) of the Employment Relations Act. Barry Young's case is an example. - Section 103(1)(k) falls under Part 9 of the Employment Relations Act, which covers matters like unjustified dismissal. - Section 103(1)(b) would be in the course of employment. - Retaliation is defined similarly to health and safety laws, including actions like dismissal, refusal of work, and adverse treatment. - Raising health and safety issues in the Employment Relationship Act Section 89 HSWA 2015. - Section 22 relates to victimization and notes similar wording is also in the Human Rights Act. Section 66 HRA 1993. - Section 23 provides immunity from civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings for both whistleblowers and those who refer disclosures. - This immunity applies despite any confidentiality agreements or policies under any other legislation. - The Ministry of Health is critiqued for its handling of Barry Young's disclosure regarding possible misrepresentation to police, or the police haven’t got the charges correct. - Questions are invited from those concerned about whistleblowing or retaliation in hypothetical scenarios, without using real names. 4 – 00:35:33 – Irene is asked if she wants to share her situation. Contact information is provided for Steve Osborne at the Ministry of Health to make complaints about responsible authorities like the Midwifery Council. - MOH put on notice. - Section 29 of the Protected Disclosures Act is referenced regarding obligations of public sector organizations to have proper internal disclosure procedures. - Follow up re employment agreement?? 42:10 - It is argued these organizations have failed to properly inform employees of the act and establish internal procedures. - Irene faced retaliation for disclosures made to the Ministry about COVID responses and vaccine risks. - Section 23 immunity and ability to disclose to the Ombudsman at any time under the act are discussed as ways to defend against retaliation. - Irene discusses her ongoing legal battles, including a case being struck out in Wellington High Court and ongoing issues in the criminal court system. - Irene is encouraged to formally disclose to the Ombudsman and use the act's protections against further retaliation from the Midwifery Council and others involved in her case. Section 11 (3) A discloser is entitled to protection for a protected disclosure made to an appropriate authority at any time. - Setting a date to jointly disclose to the Ombudsman before Christmas is proposed to help Irene's ongoing legal matters. Her large volume of evidence is acknowledged. Section 21 - Prohibition on retaliation will apply to Irene. - So in summary, the conversation focuses on applying the Protected Disclosures Act to Irene's situation and defenses against retaliation through disclosure to the Ombudsman. 5 – 00:57:05 – QUESTION FROM THE CHAT - The discussion focuses on whether the Protected Disclosures Act protects disclosures regarding imminent risk or risk of harm by individuals within organizations. It is clarified the act covers wrongdoing by organizations and individuals. - An example is given of disclosing abuse of elderly residents by a boss to be protected under the act. - Irene's ongoing legal issues are acknowledged, and patience in progressing cases is encouraged. - Manslaughter and other damages from lockdowns won’t be protected under Section 34 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. - A recent employment court case (Cronin-Lampe v Board of Trustees of Melville High School) awarding over $1.79 million in damages is discussed as potentially relevant for breach of contract claims. Pecuniary loss. - The Employment court found that section 21B of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 did not act as a bar to the claims. - Reminder about Section 142 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Limitation period for actions other than personal grievances, for breach of contract. - The importance of ongoing whistleblowing to keep pressure on organizations and "shock and awe" them is emphasized. - Encouragement to join the union to collectively address issues and set precedents through the legal system as well as enable self-governance in workplaces. - Sharing the discussions on social media to spread information is recommended. Continued monitoring of issues and potential future whistleblowers is hoped for. Support to Ants’ and Amanda Turners page. - In summary, the conversation focuses on clarifying protections under the Act and strategies for legal recourse and organizing through whistleblowing and union participation. Justice and happy and safe workplaces. CONTENT LINKS Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022: Current New Zealand law protecting whistleblowers from reprisals. It came into force in July 2022. Section 3 – The purpose Section 7 - view the flowchart which gives an overview of how the Act applies to the discloser. Section 8 - Meaning of a disclosure in this act. Section 9 - Meaning of protected disclosure Subpart 2 - To whom disclosures can be made Sections regarding requirements for receivers of disclosures and protections for whistleblowers. Section 11 (3) - A discloser is entitled to protection for a protected disclosure made to an appropriate authority at any time. Section 13 - Guidance: what receiver should do Section 14 - Guidance for receivers of disclosures Section 16 - Referral of disclosures Section 21 - Prohibition on retaliation Section 22 - No victimisation Section 23 - Immunity from liability Section 29 - Public sector organisations must have internal procedures https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0020/latest/LMS301283.html Commonwealth Act: Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013A00133 Section 22 prohibits detrimental action against public officials who make protected disclosures. Same as Section 21 NZ Act. Section 26 provides immunity from civil, criminal and administrative liability for public interest disclosures made under the Act. Equivalent protection to Section 23 NZ Act. Australia - Model WHS laws https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/law-and-regulation/model-whs-laws Controller and Auditor-General https://oag.parliament.nz/about-us/what-we-do https://www.parliament.nz/en/visit-and-learn/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/who-are-the-officers-of-parliament/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controller_and_Auditor-General_of_New_Zealand Section 28 Ombudsmen Act 1975 - Delegation of powers by Ombudsman https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0009/latest/whole.html#DLM431185 Dr Sharma https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/08/labour-s-dr-gaurav-sharma-breaks-silence-accusing-prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-of-cover-up-releases-secret-recording-of-mp.html Section 103 (1)(k) Employment Relations Act 2000: Provides right to bring personal grievance for retaliation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM60322 Section 89 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 - Meaning of prohibited health and safety reason https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5977026.html “Victimisation” search in the Act - Human Rights Act 1993 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/resultsin.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed81ce7ed5_victimisation_25_se&p=1 Section 66 Human Rights Act 1993 - Victimisation of whistleblower or person making use of rights prohibited https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304658.html Section 34 COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 - Protection of persons acting under authority of this Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0012/latest/LMS344210.html Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 - Protection of persons acting under authority of Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1956/0065/121.0/DLM308498.html School counsellors win $1.8m in damages for workplace stress over student suicides, deaths https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/school-counsellors-win-179m-damages-for-workplace-stress-over-student-suicides-deaths/ 2023 NZEmpC 144 Cronin-Lampe v Board of Trustees of Melville https://www.employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-144-Cronin-Lampe-v-Board-of-Trustees-of-Melville-High-School.pdf See damages/remedies https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-221-Cronin-Lampe-v-BoT-of-Melville-High-School-No-2.pdf Section 21B Accident Compensation Act 2001 (New Zealand): Discussion of case awarding damages and relevance of section 21B. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0049/latest/whole.html Section 142 Employment Relations Act 2000 - Limitation period for actions other than personal grievances No action may be commenced in the Authority or the court in relation to an employment relationship problem that is not a personal grievance more than 6 years after the date on which the cause of action arose. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/DLM60902.html OTHER FUNDRAISERS Constitutional Freedom of speech Case in NZ – Fundraiser Freedom of speech, our most fundamental freedom has been under attack, especially for the last 3 years. At least, the New Zealand Court of Appeal will hear arguments (Amanda Jean Turner and Te Whatu Ora- Health New Zealand in Respect of the Former District health board CA652/2023. https://www.givesendgo.com/GBB4J Amanda Turner - Fundraiser and info on N8WUNZ website https://number8.org.nz/press-releases-news-updates/ground-breaking-nz-case-constitutional-freedom-of-speech-case/ ANTS HAINES: ‘MY BARBER' OWNER, ROTORUA: ON REFUSING TO CLOSE HIS BUSINESS OR COMPLY WITH COVID VAX PASSES, AND CHALLENGING WORKSAFE OVER $48,000 IN FINES 17 November 2023 https://realitycheck.radio/ants-haines-my-barber-owner-rotorua-on-refusing-to-close-his-business-or-comply-with-covid-vax-passes-and-challenging-worksafe-over-48000-in-fines/ In Queensland, Australia, the equivalent whistleblower protection legislation is the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010. Australia (national) - Commonwealth Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 Queensland Act: Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 Section 40 prohibits reprisals against a person because they make a public interest disclosure. This is equivalent to Section 21 of the NZ Act. Section 41 provides immunity from civil and criminal liability for public interest disclosures made in accordance with the Act. Equivalent to Section 23 of the NZ Act. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2010-038 INDUSTRIAL REGISTRY Industrial Court of Queensland and Queensland Industrial Relations Commission Public Interest Disclosure Procedure 2021 https://www.qirc.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/public_interest_disclosure_procedure.pdf?v=1639001530 Queensland Ombudsman - What is a public interest disclosure? https://www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au/improve-public-administration/public-interest-disclosures/what-is-a-public-interest-disclosure 25 years of whistleblower protection in Queensland https://www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au/improve-public-administration/blog/25-years-of-whistleblower-protection-in-queensland

Tonight Liz guides us through the main clauses in the Protected Disclosures(Whistle Blowers) Act which protects NZ's heroic whistleblower Barry Young under that act and also through the mechanism of that Act being bound to the Employment Relations Act Under Protected Disclosure Act - The Employer is forbidden to retaliate under section 21 - if retaliation occurs this section allows the employee to take out a personal grievance under section 103(1)(k) of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Section 23 of this act also protects the Employee from civil, criminal, and disciplinary proceedings if they intend to or have carried out a protected disclosure We also examine who is Shane Kinley - He is one of the main players at MBIE and now is an ERA member. He ruled in the case of Barry Young that an injunction was necessary to bring down the MoH data from sites around the world due to the harm that it may cause people - Which is false as the data did not contain peoples names. The MoH itself is the cause of harm and death to tens of thousands of NZdrs - Barry is the hero that is bringing this to centre stage across the world. We look at OIAs showing the conversations around the horrible advice given to PCBUs by Shane and MBIE. Unlawful infact. This advice has landed many PCBUs in employment disputes, the ERA, Employment Court and being force to payout to employees in out of court settlements. Hopefully these PCBUs are learning who they can trust and who they cannot. The OIAs are on our N8 website - Links here: Please share this video and support the work of the Number 8 Workers Union - we have lots of cases going through employer mediations, ERA hearing and the Employment Courts. We also spend time creating this content so you can become knowledgeable about the laws and legal systems in New Zealand which empower through knowledge. Your support ensures we can carry on with all of this hugely important work Please also support Amanda Turner with Number 8 in her Freedom of Speech Case through the Court of Appeal And Ants the awesome barber from rotorua with his case against Worksafe Links for these will be added shortly Timeline: 1 – 00:00:00 – The main speaker is Liz Lambert, president of the Number 8 Workers’ Union of New Zealand. Tonight’s topic is the title “Disentanglement Politics from Law & Shane Kinley” and recap from Wednesday zoom about the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022. - Wants to discuss data from a Zoom call in September 22 about COVID vax deaths and Canadians who analysed similar open-source data and found the same conclusions for the southern hemisphere. However, Barry’s data has death dates. Data link TBA. Matt King. - Shane Kinley works at the Employment Relations Authority and agreed to an injunction stopping information spread about COVID data. Kenley previously worked 11 years at MBIE as director on workplace relations safety policy. Prior to that he worked at the Department of Labour. - An independent task force was set up in 2012 after the Pike River mining disaster to review NZ's health and safety systems. It found a lack of consolidated data and inadequate coordination between agencies. - The Department of Labour was dissolved in 2012 and incorporated into MBIE. Occupational health issues were not being properly addressed, with ACC doctors denying many claims. Repetitive strain injuries from tasks like keyboarding were not being covered. WorkSafe was implemented instead of occupational health. - The task force recommended improving data collection and awareness of occupational health risks, but not much action was actually taken on these issues. 2 – 00:15:30 – Worker involvement in health and safety was a key recommendation from the Pike River disaster inquiry. Strong worker participation is essential for good safety performance (not health.) The Pike River disaster lead to the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 2015. - Shane Kinley had worked at MBIE for 11 years on workplace relations and safety policy, including advising the independent health and safety task force set up after Pike River. - In late September 2021, MBIE, WorkSafe and Crown Law got involved after workers requested information about COVID vaccines. They drafted Q&As stating employers (PCBU) did not need to discuss vaccine safety. They were guided to refer the worker a doctor or to the public health advise, employer can focus on good faith conversations. - The drafts avoided mentioning the HSWA and focused instead on public health advice. But HSWA requires risk assessments for anything brought into the workplace. - Emails show editing out references to HSWA and attempts to frame it under public law challenges rather than employment law. This ignored that secondary legislation cannot override primary acts of parliament like HSWA. - The Employment Relations Authority initially supported MBIE but was later overturned by the chief employment court judge who cited obligations under HSWA regarding consultation. GF case and Tikanga - GF v COMPTROLLER OF THE NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMS SERVICE [2023] NZEmpC 101 [30 June 2023] - Correspondence suggests Crown Law heavily influenced MBIE's response despite HSWA being the relevant legislation for workplace health and safety issues. The crown is political, why could they get into a person’s private live. 00:25:00 Liz dissects the OIA re Shane Kinley - MBIE-S-Kinley-Additional-emails-letters… 3 – 00:28:56 – Shane Kenley was working to finalize Q&A guidance for employers on discussing COVID vaccines with hesitant workers. It was intended for the MBIE website to help meet the vaccination order deadline. - Emails show discussions between MBIE, Crown Law and others about the guidance. Ian from Crown Law had previously been in the NZ Defence Force. - Workers had submitted extensive requests for information about vaccine safety that employers found concerning or "overkill". - The guidance advised employers did not need to debate vaccine safety and should point workers to public health advice. But MBIE/MedSafe had not actually assessed vaccine risks themselves. However, Te Whatu Ora need not worry about risk as they gave themselves exemptions. - There was discussion of "going hard" in the guidance and reliance on Crown Law's view. However, Shane noted the HSWA requires risk assessments for anything brought into the workplace. They gave employers confidence that they could just sack their unvaxxed staff. - The covid tactics were like the Asch Conformity Experiment. - Winston Peters had criticized experts for being wrong in their predictions, likely referring “covid experts.” The summaries reference extensive late-night work by MBIE/Crown Law to produce the employer guidance. - It's unclear if Shane Kinley was a lawyer but he had a policy role, though was seemingly taking direction from Crown Law on the guidance. 4 – 00:40:33 – Shane Kinley and others at MBIE were communicating in late September/early October 2021 about draft Q&A guidance for employers on discussing vaccines with workers. - Redacted OIA sections is likely Legal privilege claimed, meaning Shane Kinley was a lawyer. - Liz suggests using the OIA/Privacy Act to request information from private organisations (not just public bodies) to get around legal privilege. - The draft guidance stated a PCBU did not need to engage deeply on vaccine issues and should point workers to public health experts. But it confused workplace health and safety laws with public health laws. - It noted an employer was only required to discuss workplace issues under the Employment Relations Act (ERA), not health and safety issues covered by the HSWA. - A note referenced an Employment Relations Authority decision finding an unvaccinated worker was not unjustly dismissed*. But this would not set legal precedent without an Employment Court case. * See GF v COMPTROLLER OF THE NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMS SERVICE [2023] NZEmpC 101 [30 June 2023] – Judgement. Process discussion. Haywood? - New Zealand historically had progressive early workplace health and safety laws but no dedicated ministry. 1894 Factories Acts laid out laws for woman and children in the workplace but was short-lived. Workers' compensation evolved into today's ACC system. - There has been increasing politicization of workplace roles as union representatives enter politics. Andrew Little is used as an example of this pathway. Past zoom about unions: Ep. 78 - 20230915 (F) Union Consciousness. - The guidance overall showed confusion between public health, employment and workplace health/safety laws. 5 – 00:53:42 – Liz providing further explanation of Section 23 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2020 regarding immunity from civil, criminal and disciplinary proceedings for whistleblowers. - Barry had two separate situations. 1. Employment Relations Authority granted an ex-parte injunction to Te Whatu Ora to take down. 2. Criminal charges brought by police against Barry in District Court for allegedly stealing data. He is due to appear in court again December 18. - The Act applies to employees, contractors and volunteers. The example case discussed was Barry’s and Te Whatu Ora from the Ministry of Health. - Barry was instantly dismissed but is protected from retaliation under Section 23. He can take a personal grievance (PG) under section 103 (1)k) of the Employment Relations Act. 90 days to submit PG. - Discussion of inconsistencies in the COVID vaccination data, with only 4 million of 12 million doses accounted for in the database. Pharmacies, pop-up sites etc. were not captured. - Erika had provided more context on the database payment system in a previous video Episode 97 at the 43-minute mark. - Concerns about lack of data on unvaccinated people and different definitions of acute vs. chronic death were discussed. - The purpose of the Union is recapped as promoting safe and happy workplaces using employment and health & safety laws. CONTENT LINKS GF v COMPTROLLER OF THE NEW ZEALAND CUSTOMS SERVICE [2023] NZEmpC 101 [30 June 2023] https://employmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2023-NZEmpC-101-GF-v-Comptroller-of-Customs-Judgment.pdf The Asch Conformity Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments Ep. 78 - 20230915 (F) Union Consciousness https://rumble.com/v3i0l9m-ep-78-n8-friday-15th-september-2023-union-consciousness.html Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022: Section 23 - Immunity from liability https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0020/latest/LMS301283.html Section 103 (1)(k) Employment Relations Act 2000: Provides right to bring personal grievance for retaliation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM60322 Liz Lambert Explains Protected Disclosures Act Section 21 and 23 https://rumble.com/v40bt2q-liz-lambert-explains-protected-disclosures-act-section-21-and-23.html Revisit Wednesday's zoom - Ep 97 N8 6th Dec 2023 The Whistle Blower https://rumble.com/v3zyr40-ep-97-n8-6th-dec-2023-the-whistle-blower.html OTHER Constitutional Freedom of speech Case in NZ – Fundraiser Freedom of speech, our most fundamental freedom has been under attack, especially for the last 3 years. At least, the New Zealand Court of Appeal will hear arguments (Amanda Jean Turner and Te Whatu Ora- Health New Zealand in Respect of the Former District health board CA652/2023. https://www.givesendgo.com/GBB4J Amanda Turner - Fundraiser and info on N8WUNZ website https://number8.org.nz/press-releases-news-updates/ground-breaking-nz-case-constitutional-freedom-of-speech-case/ ANTS HAINES: ‘MY BARBER' OWNER, ROTORUA: ON REFUSING TO CLOSE HIS BUSINESS OR COMPLY WITH COVID VAX PASSES, AND CHALLENGING WORKSAFE OVER $48,000 IN FINES 17 November 2023 https://realitycheck.radio/ants-haines-my-barber-owner-rotorua-on-refusing-to-close-his-business-or-comply-with-covid-vax-passes-and-challenging-worksafe-over-48000-in-fines/

Whistle Blowers are protected by law under the Protected Disclosures Act and Employment Relations Act

Tonight was a record zoom attendance! A super hot topic which has huge implications for our nation going forward Liz takes us through Barry's lawful protections under the Protected disclosures Act and Employment Relations Act as they are linked together - No matter what agreement he had with his employer he is protected - The police had no business getting involved for this reason. We all know who they should be arresting!! A super must watch and please share afr and wide - Applied Knowledge is Power! TIMELINE 1 – 00:01:04 – The main speaker is Liz Lambert, president of the Number 8 Workers’ Union of New Zealand. Erika speaks from 00:44:21 to 00:49:45. - Liz is discussing the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022, which updated a previous Protected Disclosures Act 2000. No cases have been brought under either act yet.. - Barry had two separate situations. 1. Employment Relations Authority granted an ex-parte injunction to Te Whatu Ora to take down. See content link for the determination. 2. Criminal charges brought by police against Barry in District Court for allegedly stealing data. He is due to appear in court again December 18. - There have been two determinations from the Employment Authority regarding termination of whistleblower Barry. One case involved redacting names, the other named the company Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand. - Section 249 of the Crimes Act 1961 - Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose. - Actus reus [a guilty act] & Mens rea [a guilty mind] – Police must proof without claim of right. - However the Protection of Whistleblowers Act may present a solution. - Concerns were raised about potential bias of an Employment Authority member Shane Kinley (Former MBIE policy director) involved in a recent case based on an OIA response. Liz questions the legality of this member's involvement. - Discussion to revisit the zoom about Sue Grey’s OIA about Shane Kinley 2 – 00:09:25 – Liz is going through the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 section by section. - The Act replaced the previous Protected Disclosures Act and names the Public Service Commission as the administrator. The Public Service Commissioner is the head of all of the public servants. Public servants have to be politically neutral and they get a lot of protection under the under the New Zealand Bill of Rights. PSA governs the commission. - Public servants have to be politically neutral. Section 12 PSA 2020 - Section 3: The purpose of the Act is to promote the public interest by facilitating a disclosure and timely investigation of serious wrongdoing in or by an organisation and by protecting the people who disclose in accordance with this act. - Section 7: View the flowchart which gives an overview of how the Act applies to the discloser. - Section 8: Meaning of a discloser, defines who can make a protected disclosure (whistleblower), including current/former employees, contractors, and members of the public engaging with an organization. - Those in section 8 are also covered by the Health and Safety Work Act 2015. Those that are employees are also protected by the Employment Relations Act. - Section 9: Meaning of protected disclosure. details what constitutes a protected disclosure - believing there is serious wrongdoing and disclosing in good faith. - Section 10: Meaning of serious wrongdoing. Serious wrongdoing includes criminal offenses, health and safety risks, corruption, or mismanagement. Discussing which subsection would apply to disclosers. - Subpart 2: What to do (disclosers and receivers.) Outlines how and to whom disclosures can be made, including internally, to oversight agencies like the Ombudsman, or Members of Parliament. - Discussion about Barry’s interview on Alex Jones and Barry’s action to disclose to MoH and a MP. - Receivers of disclosures like the Ministry of Health must acknowledge receipt within 20 days, but Barry was cut off from the system and fired instead of his disclosure being handled properly. 3 – 00:22:43 – Section 13: Guidance: What the receiver should do. The receiver of a disclosure (e.g. Ministry of Health) must acknowledge receipt within 20 working days. Plus more. - Barry was cut off from the system and fired instead of his disclosure being properly handled. - The Act outlines steps the receiver must take to address the disclosure, including investigating, informing the whistleblower of actions taken, and referring matters if needed. - The Act protects the whistle-blower, not the MoH. - Disclosures can be made to the Ombudsman or Minister/Speaker of Parliament regarding certain roles. - Part 3: Protections include confidentiality unless the whistleblower consents otherwise. - The second ERA determination disclosed Te Whatu Ora (MoH) but not the disclosers. Section 20: Obligation not to retaliate or treat less favourably. Section 21: No retaliation by employer. - Section 21 (2), Employers cannot retaliate against whistleblowers under the Act or Employment Relations Act section 103(1)(k). Barry could bring a personal grievance. 90 days to raise the PG. - Sections 23 and 21 provide immunity from civil/criminal liability and protect whistleblowers from retaliation even if disclosure agreements or policies are violated. The police cannot prosecute Barry according to Section 23. - This may be relevant to healthcare workers who received exemptions and could become whistleblowers to disclose information in the public interest. 11,005 operational exemptions. - Silence is complicity. Maybe those exempt were made to sign an NDA, but according to Section 23 (2) they will be protected. The NDA will be of no effect. Don’t have to go to the employer, they can go straight to the Ombudsman 4 – 00:36:10 – The Ministry of Health and police responses have played into Liz’s hands as evidence of retaliation against the whistleblower. - Barry could bring a personal grievance claim under the Employment Relations Act for unjustified dismissal and retaliation. - Sections 23 and 21 provide protections and immunity even if employers pursue criminal charges or civil cases against whistleblowers. - This case could set a precedent for whistleblowing in New Zealand and encourage more people to come forward, including about issues in other organisations like councils, public service and more. - Extra positions created in Christchurch for Three Waters, even though the budget did not accommodate. OPEN CHAT – 00:36:10 – - Discussion on details of Barry’s sacking. Matthew Hague is Barry’s lawyer. ERIKA – 43:10 - Payment databases like the immunization one leaked are important records as they relate to transactional payments. - An Oracle database administrator would have access to cross-reference different health databases by unique identifiers like NHI numbers .Barry was an Oracle database administrator. - The Te Whatu Ora (MoH) website states they have given out 12 million doses, the system leaked has 4 million doses. The 4 million is only the immunisation approved providers, not the pop ups, arenas, maraes etc. - The oracle database administrator would look after many databases. - Unique identifier is the National Health number NHI, can be cross refenced into other databases, including the coroner. Payment database is a reliable record. - Comments from Shane Kinley trying to prevent discussing the leaked data doesn't apply to others not employed by the relevant agency due to whistleblower protections. - Censoring truth is a sign of being ruled by criminals, per a quote from Edward Snowden about criminalising disclosure of information. - Discussion of encouraging more whistleblowing to expose wrongdoing across the public sector and provide protections for people who do so. 5 – 00:49:45 – The injunction against the whistleblower could require the Ministry of Health to pay damages if it caused harm, as security is required for injunctions. It’s an offence for MoH to retaliate. - Winston Peters as an MP cannot direct the police or interfere with criminal investigations due to separation of powers and constitutional rules. Note Stuart Nash ex police commissioner. QUESTIONS FROM THE CHAT - 54:30- - There is debate around whether data from a public entity like Health is truly public information given taxpayer funding. - Previous cases found information from councils and other public bodies should be publicly disclosed under Acts like the OIA and Meetings Act within 20 days. Discussing case about Tararua District Council 2004. - Public sector employees may have rights to free speech and from the Bill of Rights Act through their employment agreements and the Public Service Act. - An ongoing court case could determine if public servants can argue rights like free speech regarding their employment. - Whistleblowing is an important form of free speech to expose wrongdoing by public bodies that greatly impact daily lives. More protection and transparency around public data and agencies may be needed. 6 - 01:03:20 – Barry has support around the world and knows he did the right thing by whistleblowing. - The overblown response by authorities was meant to scare whistleblowers but may encourage more to come forward now. - Discussions that the Protective Disclosures Act needs to be shared more to reassure potential whistleblowers. - Medicines Act 1981: Section 20(3) discussed in relation to warranties on new medicines, which is not allowed. - Section 129 Health Act 1956 - References to pursuing liability against reluctant individuals (who don’t whistleblow) under the Health Act. - Suggestions that guilty parties in government panicked in their response to Barry. - Praise for Barry's calm demeanor and accounts that he was treated well in prison by staff. - Ongoing discussions of law and cases provide hopeful precedent to challenge overreach by authorities. - Encouragement to keep exposing wrongdoing through lawful whistleblowing and upholding transparency. CONTENT LINKS Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022: Current New Zealand law protecting whistleblowers from reprisals. It came into force in July 2022. Section 3 – The purpose Section 7 - view the flowchart which gives an overview of how the Act applies to the discloser. Section 8 - Meaning of a disclosure in this act. Section 9 - Meaning of protected disclosure Subpart 2 - To whom disclosures can be made Sections regarding requirements for receivers of disclosures and protections for whistleblowers. Section 14 - Guidance for receivers of disclosures Section 16 - Referral of disclosures Section 21 - Prohibition on retaliation Section 23 - Immunity from liability https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0020/latest/LMS301283.html Public Service Commission information on Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/publications/protected-disclosures-act-2022/ Section 12 Public Services Act 2020 - Public service principles (1) In order to achieve the purpose in section 11, the public service principles are: Politically neutral (a) to act in a politically neutral manner; and https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/LMS356871.html Determination 1 NZERA 718 https://determinations.era.govt.nz/assets/elawpdf/2023/2023-NZERA-718.pdf Section 249 Crimes Act 1961 - Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM330422.html Shane Kinley Current Member of the Employment Relations Authority (Dec 2022 - Present · 1 yr 1 mo) Former MBIE - Policy Director - Workplace Relations & Safety (Apr 2013 - Dec 2022 · 9 yrs 9 mos), Policy Manager - Employment Relations – Department of Labour (Jan 1998 - May 2008 · 10 yrs 5 mos) https://number8.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/MBIE-S-Kinley-Additional-emails-letters-and-versions-Redacted-PW-FREE.pdf Employment Relations Act 2000: Defines contract workers and relevance to whistleblower protections. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/whole.html New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Provides protections for political neutrality of public servants. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html Ombudsman: Can receive disclosures at any time under the Act. https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/ Section 103 (1)(k) Employment Relations Act 2000: Provides right to bring personal grievance for retaliation. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/whole.html#DLM60322 Official Information Act 1982: Requires certain public information to be disclosed. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/0156/latest/whole.html Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987: Requires council information to be disclosed. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1987/0174/latest/whole.html Section 129 of the Health Act 1956 - Protection of persons acting under authority of Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1956/0065/121.0/DLM308498.html Section 20 (3) Medicines Act 1981 – Restrictions on sale or supply of new medicines No consent given under this section shall be deemed to warrant the safety or efficacy of the medicine to which the consent relates. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0118/latest/DLM55054.html The three must watch whistleblower videos from The Alex Jones Show are available here: Barry, Steve Kirsh, Hannah Spier and Liz Gunn https://counterspinmedia.com/resources-videos/ Steve Kirsch's newsletter https://kirschsubstack.com/p/warning-mega-and-wasabi-can-screw?publication_id=548354&post_id=139460940&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=oszo0 OTHER FUNDRAISERS Constitutional Freedom of speech Case in NZ – Fundraiser Freedom of speech, our most fundamental freedom has been under attack, especially for the last 3 years. At least, the New Zealand Court of Appeal will hear arguments (Amanda Jean Turner and Te Whatu Ora- Health New Zealand in Respect of the Former District health board CA652/2023. https://www.givesendgo.com/GBB4J Amanda Turner - Fundraiser and info on N8WUNZ website https://number8.org.nz/press-releases-news-updates/ground-breaking-nz-case-constitutional-freedom-of-speech-case/ ANTS HAINES: ‘MY BARBER' OWNER, ROTORUA: ON REFUSING TO CLOSE HIS BUSINESS OR COMPLY WITH COVID VAX PASSES, AND CHALLENGING WORKSAFE OVER $48,000 IN FINES 17 November 2023 https://realitycheck.radio/ants-haines-my-barber-owner-rotorua-on-refusing-to-close-his-business-or-comply-with-covid-vax-passes-and-challenging-worksafe-over-48000-in-fines/ https://twitter.com/HopeRising19/status/1732179220884029679?s=20 In Queensland, Australia, the equivalent whistleblower protection legislation is the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010. Australia (national) - Commonwealth Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 Queensland Act: Section 40 prohibits reprisals against a person because they make a public interest disclosure. This is equivalent to Section 21 of the NZ Act. Section 41 provides immunity from civil and criminal liability for public interest disclosures made in accordance with the Act. Equivalent to Section 23 of the NZ Act. Commonwealth Act: Section 22 prohibits detrimental action against public officials who make protected disclosures. Same as Section 21 NZ Act. Section 26 provides immunity from civil, criminal and administrative liability for public interest disclosures made under the Act. Equivalent protection to Section 23 NZ Act.

Tonight Liz takes us through what is also "The Great Resigning". There has been a great number of resignations of govt CEO's and the like. We are keeping a list. JA, Stuart Nash, Michael Woods, Kiri Tapu Allen Worksafe CEO, Phil Parkes, Mayor of Wellington. We have a deep dive on Michael Wood - He had to resign due to his multiple conflicts of interests - He has shares in businesses that would directly benefit from the info gained from his ministerial position. He was the minister during the Yardley case. Chorus, Spark & National Australia Bank and Auckland Airport. Liz talks about her Court of Appeal case and more details of the submission she has just finished - Amazing stuff and so much more Remember this Court of Appeal case is incredibly important for all of us - Without Freedom of Speech we have not other rights Please help support Amanda with her court costs. As we all know freedom doesn't come for free but many hands make light work. You can find Amanda's bank account info on our website here - https://number8.org.nz/press-releases-news-updates/ground-breaking-nz-case-constitutional-freedom-of-speech-case/ Also please support Ants the incredibly brave man and barber from Rotorua who is taking on Worksafe who imposed unlawful fines accompanied with loads of coercion and bullying - You can support him here https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/my-battle-with-work-safe TIMELINE 1 – 00:00:06 – Discussion about a list of public figures who have recently resigned from positions in New Zealand. Names mentioned included Jacinda Ardern, Stuart Nash, Kiritapu Allan and Michael Wood. Used search “Woke-resignation-New Zealand.” - Michael Woods resigned as Minister of Immigration and Transport after it came to light he had undisclosed shareholdings in companies like Chorus, Spark and National Australia Bank but was making decisions impacting those industries. OIA’s revealed the information. JM Fairy family trust trustee - Woods also linked to unions as the MBIE minister involved in the "Yardley case". Questions about his objectives in meetings with unions given his shareholdings. - MBIE, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Justice COVID team all had a part in putting together the covid orders. - Telecommunications green-list - The speakers attended an event (1914 Waihi strike) where Wood spoke and got the impression he and the unions wanted more people on welfare and were willing to damage the economy to achieve higher wages. - Employment insurance. - Liz discusses touch various legal cases and appeals, including the appeal of the Amanda Turner case and a precedent case Butler v Shepherd (2011, NZ District Court) involving medical treatment and employment obligations. Suing the university staff (servants) and Attorney General. From Employment courts to District court. - Why lawyers didn’t take on cases during the scamdemic. 2 – 00:20:44 – Section 3(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 discussed in relation the Butler case. It outlines that the Act applies to any public body or person performing public functions through law or statute. - Section 3(a) is the three branches of the government: legislative, executive and judicial. - Examples given were government ministries that were susceptible to judicial review challenges. It also covers other "tentacles" of the executive branch like state entities. - The precedent case of Butler v Shepherd further analyses. It involved suing fellow employees at the University of Auckland. The judge found the employees did not have rights under Section 3B to sue, only the Vice Chancellor could be. Vicarious liability. - Liz argues the judge Bell lacked employment law expertise and there may have been gaps in understanding. An appeal was being prepared citing this case. - The crown witnesses in the Yardley case were not cross-examined. - Employment Relations act is supposed to address the imbalance of power between the employer and employee. The employer provides the workplace, control the money, flow of work etc* read Karl Marx “Surplus value.” - Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act, on reasonable limits, was also discussed. It allows rights to be limited if justified in a democratic society through lawful means. Emphasis on “reasonable limits prescribed by law” and in relation to Butler v Shepherd case. - The other case used against Amanda Turner was 2001 case of Electrical Workers Union v Mighty River Power regarding random drug testing was mentioned. The union had incorporated Section 11 rights into its collective agreement to argue against random testing. 3 – 00:33:41 – Continued discussion was analysing the concepts of "reasonable limit prescribed by law" from Section 5 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act. - It was noted that a workplace policy is not the same as a law and cannot be used to limit rights under Section 5. The 2001 Electrical Workers Union v Mighty River Power case found that a policy is not a law. - Liz to keep fighting to enable workers to use the Bill of Rights Act in employment cases, as the precedent of Butler v Shepherd was still being used to claim workers cannot access it. - Can’t use section 5 because a group right cannot limit a individuals. Public health should not have overcome a individual person’s right not to be forced to have a vaccination. - Sole jurisdiction, Non-CVC rules, South Taranaki District Council Fluoride case. - Use of law degrees for practising law or ego-based gains. - More discussion on Yardley. All the above in relation to the Amanda Turner appeal. - Comment from Judge Holden about guidance, policy and rights. - Are job ads still requiring jab status and what to do - Names of public officials who had resigned in New Zealand were reviewed, including Stuart Nash, Michael Wood, Kiri Allan. Earlier resignations mentioned were Dr. Ashley Bloomfield and an official named Caroline who returned to Ireland. After FDA were forced to release post marketing report. - It was reported that Caroline had apparently commented on Irish radio about feeling thrown under the bus in New Zealand's COVID response, but the recording was later removed. 4 – 00:46:35 – OPEN CHAT – Trevor Mallard, the former Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives, was discussed. He faced criticism for using music and sprinklers against the Wellington freedom protesters. - After facing pressure, Mallard received a diplomatic posting in Ireland rather than being fired. Others thought he deserved to be sacked for his actions. - Stuart Nash resigned as Police Minister after admitting discussing a criminal case with a friend on the radio. This came around the time of Cyclone Gabriel hitting Hawke's Bay. - Nash appeared unprepared when visiting Hawke's Bay after the cyclone, as looting and gang activity were widespread. His resignation followed two weeks later. - It was commented that political parties can more easily force resignations of MPs if desired, rather than pursuing wrongdoing directly. Concerns were raised about representing constituencies without knowing people's backgrounds. 5 – 00:55:24 – The question was asked whether a judge can be held in contempt in their own court. It was clarified that under the Judicature Act, the bailiff is the only person who can detain or arrest a judge if they are not following proper process. - Examples discussed where a bailiff could be called upon, such as if a judge was being improper or violating the rule of law. However, it was noted this has never actually happened - Discussing past politicians who had held roles like Attorney General and concerns about possible conflicts of interest if they returned. - A question was asked about changing prescriptions without consent. It was suggested this could fall under consumer law as a service issue rather than the Bill of Rights. - Contractual remedies – - Roberts and Corrections, a brief employment case involving Corrections was mentioned. Health and safety law precedents like WorkSafe v NEMA - White Island disaster response were also briefly referenced. Finding acts to use to sue. If you have a right, somebody has a duty. - Article 3 Treaty of Waitangi (ordinary people get same rights) & Section 14 Public Services Health Act 2020 - Crown’s relationships with Māori: “are all citizens of New Zealand who are also public service employees protected by Article three of the Treaty via the Bill of Rights 1688 and the operation of Section 14 of the Public Service Act 2020.” CONTENT LINKS Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler v Martin Shepherd Hc Ak https://nz.vlex.com/vid/jesse-waiariki-temanava-butler-793537537 Section 3 (b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Application (b) by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224799.html ELECTRICAL UNION 2001 INCORPORATED, DEAN GREGORY COWELL v AND MIGHTY RIVER POWER LIMITED https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/assets/2013-NZEmpC-197-Electrial-Union-2001-Inc-and-Anor-v-Mighty-River-Pow.pdf Yardley v Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety [2022] NZHC 291 https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2022-NZHC-291.pdf Theories of Surplus Value, Marx 1861-3 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/add1.htm eBook THEORIES OF SURPLUS-VALUE https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/tsv/tsv-v1.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value Section 5 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Justified limitations Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/whole.html#DLM225501 Bailiff’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailiff Human Rights Act 1993 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/whole.html Article 3 Treaty of Waitangi 1840: Guarantees Māori the rights and duties of British subjects. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text Section 14 Public Services Health Act 2020 - Crown’s relationships with Māori https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0040/latest/LMS356875.html OTHER Research requested: WOKESTER LIST Constitutional Freedom of speech Case in NZ – Fundraiser Freedom of speech, our most fundamental freedom has been under attack, especially for the last 3 years. At least, the New Zealand Court of Appeal will hear arguments (Amanda Jean Turner and Te Whatu Ora- Health New Zealand in Respect of the Former District health board CA652/2023. https://www.givesendgo.com/GBB4J Amanda Turner - Fundraiser and info on N8WUNZ website https://number8.org.nz/press-releases-news-updates/ground-breaking-nz-case-constitutional-freedom-of-speech-case/ ANTS HAINES: ‘MY BARBER' OWNER, ROTORUA: ON REFUSING TO CLOSE HIS BUSINESS OR COMPLY WITH COVID VAX PASSES, AND CHALLENGING WORKSAFE OVER $48,000 IN FINES 17 November 2023 https://realitycheck.radio/ants-haines-my-barber-owner-rotorua-on-refusing-to-close-his-business-or-comply-with-covid-vax-passes-and-challenging-worksafe-over-48000-in-fines/