SUBMISSION BY NZ OUTDOORS PARTY ON COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill Prepared and lodged by Co-leader- Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc (Biochemistry and Microbiology), RSHDipPHI
Dated: 5 October 2021
email@example.com Ph 022 6910586
This submission is lodged by the NZ OUTDOORS PARTY, a registered political party under the Electoral Act.
The NZ OUTDOORS PARTY has a rapidly growing and active membership, who value freedom and New Zealand, including its people, tikanga and environment.
The NZ OUTDOORS PARTY promotes connection of New Zealanders with each other and with nature.
The NZ OUTDOORS PARTY promotes:
democracy where people play an active role in decision making, knowing their views are valued and will be listened to.
freedom from excessive government and international interference in the lives of New Zealanders;
more self-sufficiency for New Zealand and New Zealanders,
better care of our water, land, soil, wildlife and of our people.
natural and organic regenerative approaches to agriculture to promote community wellbeing and thriving rural communities and local businesses.
“localism” to encourage and empower local people to support their local communities and have an active role in decision which affect the health and wellbeing of their community;
food and body sovereignty;
transparent representation and informed decision making which will promote a long-term vision for protecting and promoting the interests of all New Zealanders, our children and grandchildren.
The NZ OUTDOORS PARTY wishes to be heard in person on this submission.
The NZ Outdoors Party opposes the amendments proposed by the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill for the following reasons:
There is no definition of COVID-19 in the Act. Instead the government relies on a MinHealth definition which refers to one or more common cold type symptoms and an unreliable PCR test that can readily be manipulated by varying cycle numbers and other “interpretation”. A kiwifruit was recently reported as testing positive under this test.
Experts in the UK have recognised since 19 March 2020 that COVID-19 does not meet the criteria to be classified as a “HCID” High consequence infection disease. Covid-19 deaths have been greatly over reported due to a novel approach of reporting cases “with Covid” not from Covid and failing to undertake autopsies or other responsible investigation or verification. The average age of death with Covid-19 is very similar to the average age of death without Covid-19, indicating that most victims were close to death in any event. The only people who die form Covid-19 are those who were very frail and susceptible to many disease or those who suffered medical misadventure.
Since April 2020 Covid-19 deaths have almost completely replaced influenza deaths.
The threat is the government’s COVID-19 response, not any infectious agent. This has resulted in enormous social, cultural and economic harm to New Zealand, and the transfer of resources from real living people to multinational corporations.
Much of the world now accepts that COVID-19 is an endemic disease along with other corona virus and respiratory diseases. The death rate of 0.2% for the most common “Delta” strain is similar to the death rate for influenza. The death rate of reported NZ cases is even less.
This Bill and the NZ government Covid-19 response unjustifiably infringe on fundamental rights and freedoms protected by NZBoRA and by international law, including the Nuremburg Code. This undermining of fundamental rights and freedoms is not justified in a democratic society. At the very least there should be careful and transparent risk/benefit type analysis of the relationship between these extraordinary powers and fundamental rights and freedoms. Instead the government has either failed to obtain any such analysis and/or serially withheld it from the public.
It is an abuse of power to use or extend this emergency legislation in these circumstances.
The NZ Outdoors Party has the following specific concerns: Clause 4. The extension of this “emergency” legislation for a further year is opposed.
Clause 5 the extended definition of “infringement fee” is opposed
Clause 7 The provision to restrict the import of goods under a covid-19 order clause 11 (4) is unjustified and is contrary to the public interest. In particular attempts to prohibit the import of antigen tests, and safe and effective medications such as Ivermectin (which has an exceptionally safe profile and has been used very effectively overseas) is irrational and unjustified
Clause 9 The proposal to narrow the scope of exemptions under Clause 12 (1) is opposed
Clause 10(b) the ability for the Minister to use delegated legislation to delegate discretion to any third party is contrary to the rule of law and principles of public law. It is contrary also to constitutional convention to change the law while proceedings are before the court. Refer: CIV-2021-485- 509 K, B, L& L v Minister of Covid-19 response which alleges that the Covid-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order is unlawful and irrational because it unlawfully delegates a statutory duty to employers under Clause 8.
Clause 12- the amendment and extension of the Section 22 power to close roads, public places and stop vehicles to third parties who are not officers of the Crown or the use of any such powers which interfere in fundamental rights and freedoms without due process is opposed.
Clause 13 and 14 – increased infringement and other fines for alleged breaches of Orders the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act are opposed. The application of these orders has been a shameful debacle due in part to the very regular change to these orders with the result that even the police are often unclear about what the law is. New Zealanders with no previous criminal convictions have been incarcerated based on alleged breaches of Orders which do not reflect the law. Many of these Orders unduly interfere with protected rights and freedoms. They represent an arbitrary abuse of public rights and freedoms delegated to a Minister who appears to have little appreciation of constitutional law or public law principles or his fiduciary obligations as an elected representative.
subpart 3B MIQ process can be largely avoided.
Clause 23 the power to make new regulations as opposed
Clause 25 re section 33B. Power to incorporate material by reference to covid-19 orders will further add to the confusion about what the law is and its accessibility. Many standards are difficult to publicly access. The orders are already long complex and rapidly changing. It is impossible for people to respect the law when they cannot readily access the law.
The government appears to have forgotten that its only role is to represent the public interest and the people of New Zealand.
These proposed amendments and indeed the entire Covid-19 Public Health Act are arbitrary, punitive and confusing.
New Zealand already has a coherent and more principled regime for managing infection disease in Part 3 and 3A of the Health Act 1956 as amended in 2016. The Bill should be scrapped and the entire Covid-19 Public Health Act should be repealed.
Sue Grey. LLB(Hons), BSc (Biochemistry and Microbiology), RSHDipPHI
Sue Grey. co leader. firstname.lastname@example.org ph 022 6910586
Alan Simmons. president. email@example.com ph 0274 980 304