Kingi Taurua, a prominent Nga Puhi elder at Waitangi’s Te Tii Marae, has sent a formal notice of veto of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement to the embassies and trade departments of its proposed partner countries, and has requested that the Queen intervene on the issue.
The document cites the Treaty of Waitangi and the 1835 Declaration of Independence of New Zealand, and states that the New Zealand government does not have “due authority” to sign the TPPA without the agreement of Maori elders, “which [agreement] has not been given”.
Mr Taurua claims that the TPPA would be void in respect of New Zealand’s involvement as a result, should it be signed.
NZ Food Security has obtained a copy of the document sent by Mr Taurua, which is titled “Notice of Non-Assent to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and Exercise of Constitutional Power of Veto in Respect Thereof”.
The public release of the document comes just a day before the TPPA is due to be signed in Auckland, New Zealand on February 4 by visiting politicians from countries around the Pacific.
Mr Taurua is currently meeting with other Maori elders at Te Tii Marae in preparation for a visit by John Key, prime minister of New Zealand, and other government officials on Waitangi Day, February 6 – after the scheduled signing.
He has previously stated that Mr Key would not be allowed onto the marae if the controversial trade agreement was signed, although a trustee for the marae stated on February 2 that Mr Key would be allowed onto the land.
It is thought that the notice sent to the partner countries of the TPPA is being discussed at the marae in anticipation of the visit, as the document asks the Queen to stand in opposition to the agreement with Mr Taurua “and those other Rangatira o Te Whakaminenga o Ngā Hapū o Nu Tireni” – referring to the other chiefs gathered at the marae – that “agree to … my position”.
The document says that he “requests and requires” the Queen to intervene and act as “Protector” of New Zealand’s sovereignty from “attempts on the sovereignty of our Independent State” by “overseas corporate interests”. At least one other elder has already countersigned the document.
The language of the document echoes that of the Declaration of Independence, which was signed by Mr Taurua’s ancestor, Pareha of Ngati Rehia. He says that another ancestor of his, Te Kemara, was a signatory of the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi 1840.
Last year the Waitangi Tribunal found that Maori did not cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi, and it is apparently this sovereignty by descent – or tino rangatiratanga – that Mr Taurua is claiming he is able to use to formally veto the trade agreement.
The document closes by stating that Mr Taurua “does not give [his] permission to the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement being signed in Auckland” by the visiting officials from overseas “which position I take to the full extent of my right to regulate trade in that district.”
The Declaration of Independence, which was approved by the Queen’s predecessor King William IV and ratified by the British government, states that Maori elders would gather at Waitangi each autumn in order to regulate trade.
Follow us on twitter: @nzfoodsecurity
Letters Rogatory can now be sent by hapū to the embassies of all prospective TPPA countries, notifying them that the Crown does not have due authority to sign for New Zealand.
Suggested process follows. Please share widely – share buttons at bottom.
> Update 26 July 2015 at 1150pm: first letter sent that we know of is HERE <
For the attention of: all Claimants in the Waitangi Tribunal Claims numbers WAI 1040, 2522, 2533, 2530, 2531, 2532, 2533, and 1427; Ngā Rangatira o Ngā Hapū katoa o Aotearoa / Nu Tireni – for ALL hapū; and any New Zealander concerned that the TPPA may impact negatively upon themselves or the country.
The Crown is as little as four days from ceding New Zealand’s sovereignty to a tribunal for foreign investors, notably international bankers(1), enabling these investors to call in the material resources of the nation(2) upon the default of any unrepayable paper or electronic debts (unrepayable due to the practice of usury(3)). New Zealand is a small economy within the proposed TPPA zone, and is essentially looking at the same fate as Greece – that is, being stripped of its assets by exploitative bankers.
The Claimants and Hapū around the country above need to communicate as soon as possible with the other nations taking part in the TPPA negotiations using Letters Rogatory (interstate requests for assistance) and inform them:-
a) that the New Zealand Government is conducting negotiations of national importance without consulting its equitable partners Ngā Rangatira o Ngā Hapū katoa o Aotearoa / Nu Tireni who collectively hold tino rangatiranga or effective right of veto in matters of state, and that this fact renders the TPPA negotiations null and void on New Zealand’s part because the Crown does not have the due authority to conduct such negotiations without the agreement of the Rangatira, which has not been given
b) that the Crown is in breach of its Treaty obligations by virtue of its actions above, and is acting unconstitutionally and unlawfully in terms of international law
c) that the Claimants and Hapū in New Zealand have been exhausting their legal remedies via the Waitangi Tribunal, but that the Crown has been attempting to deny remedy by claiming authority to act unilaterally and imminently, which authority it demonstrably does not have as shown by the Waitangi Tribunal Claims numbers WAI 2522, 2533, 2530, 2531, 2532, 2533, and 1427 and also by the November 2014 findings of the Waitangi Tribunal Inquiry into the WAI 1040 Claims at http://www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/waitangi-tribunal/Reports/he-whakaputanga-me-te-tiriti-the-declaration-and-the-treaty-the-report-on-stage-1-of-the-te-paparahi-o-te-raki-inquiry
d) that the Hapū / Claimants are now exercising their right of veto to declare the negotiations void with respect New Zealand’s involvement in the formation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, and that this situation of veto will remain until they are fully informed of, and explicitly agree to the terms of the Partnership (which have hitherto been kept secret).
– The Claimants and Hapū further need to request and require that the other States do not sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement with the New Zealand Government or its representatives, as in doing so those States would be assisting in a process that undermines the Constitution of New Zealand.
– In the event where a Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement has already been signed with New Zealand, the Claimants and Hapū need to inform the other TPPA signatories as soon as possible that the Agreement is null and void on the grounds above and must be rescinded on New Zealand’s part; and further that their assertions that the Government did not have the right to act unilaterally in signing were a matter of public record via the Waitangi Tribunal and should have been considered by other parties to the TPPA in their due diligence checks of their prospective partners. It would however be courteous to inform them by whatever means before they do sign, and would also prevent the Crown from claiming a fait accompli (which seems to be its sole strategy).
– Finally it should be noted by Claimants that Letters Rogatory are inter-jurisdictional communications that usually require a seal, either that of the Hapū / Maori authority concerned or possibly that of a Notary Public in the Common Law jurisdiction of New Zealand. The seal of a lawyer of an NZ court would seem to put such letters under the jurisdiction of the NZ Crown, and therefore defeat the tino rangatiratanga that is being exercised. Letters Rogatory should also be in plain English for ease of understanding, with clear translations of any Maori terms used (such as tino rangatiratanga).
A full list of contacts for service follows at bottom. Copies of Letters Rogatory should be sent recorded delivery directly to the State Department / Foreign Offices concerned, and ideally copied to the Ambassadors / High Commissioners of the various states concerned (a list of these are at bottom).
Notes on the seriousness and implications of the TPPA
(1): the Crown has stated in its memoranda to the Waitangi Tribunal that the TPPA may be signed in Hawaii by 27 July 2015: https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_93499077/Wai%202522%2C%203.1.0020.pdf
(2): the TPPA Investment Chapter leaked on 25 March 2015 clearly states that an International Bank sited in the TPPA zone (an “Investor of a Party”) may be given rights (of control or ownership) “with respect to natural resources that a national authority controls, such as for their exploration, extraction, refining, transportation, distribution, or sale… (or) to supply … power generation or distribution, water treatment or distribution, or telecommunications… (or) to undertake infrastructure projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, canals, dams, or pipelines.” The “investments” in question can easily be national debts owed by New Zealand, and the “rights” can easily be over publicly controlled assets that are secured in relation to those debts. Alternatively, the Government can straight-out cede such rights via “Investment Agreements”. See https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf , especially the Definitions that start at the beginning of the chapter (pages 12-2, 12-3, 12-4, 12-5).
The above means that international bankers can basically get control and ownership of the country’s taonga that are supposed to be protected under the Treaty of Waitangi and the general public trust. Other investors might get options, but bankers actually create money so they have an unlimited supply of it (and they are in bed with all TPPA governments). The TPPA is unquestionably set up for – and most probably by – these international bankers.
NB: This scenario much more pressing that that of Governments being sued by cigarette manufacturers for infringing their profits via health legislation, which is a red-herring interpretation of the powers of the Investment Chapter (although seemingly correct). The core issue here is the almost-certain asset-stripping of the nation via usury imposed by foreign financial interests, by means of the TPPA.
NB also: If any Government reneges on its contracts with investors under the TPPA and nationalises or requisitions any covered investments / assets following civil unrest (which are specifically mentioned in the chapter, somewhat disconcertingly) then it must pay international investors compensation – https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf (Article II.6bis and Article 11.7: pages 12-9, 12-10, 12-11). If it doesn’t, then the other signatory countries of the TPPA will almost certainly restrict trade with the offending country, or otherwise punish it. Therefore this is a free trade agreement with the explicit condition that international investors will be allowed to divest nations of their assets by means of usury – and if they resist they must pay.
(3): Usury is the practice of charging interest on credit that cannot, in the main, be repaid. It cannot be repaid on average because the general money supply is controlled and limited by bankers, so that the overall volume of money in circulation is not sufficient to pay back the loans in existence as well as the interest due. When the principal plus interest cannot be repaid, securities on the debt can be called in (in this case, water and mineral rights, public utilities rights etc).
It’s worth mentioning that as well as being usury, this banking practice is fraud, as the credit extended (and secured) is always called a Loan or Lending – but it is not lending, because under modern banking practice the funds in question are created after the credit agreements they relate to are signed. “Lending” indicates the prior existence and ultimate ownership of something – which does not apply in the case of spontaneously created credit funds extended to a “borrower”. Further, when interest is charged on this credit, a Pecuniary Advantage by Deception is gained by banks; and when land secured against a debt is acquired by banks, Property is Obtained by Deception. These actions are illegal under the Crimes Act 1961 – see http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM330275.html. The TPPA opens this fraud opportunity up to an international level, via the leaked Investment Chapter of the TPPA. Thus the TPPA seems to be criminal under New Zealand law, and the government also seems to be engaging in a conspiracy to defraud its people.
A busy time in the days ahead. Kia kaha.
Please consider donating. Thank you.
Contact details for all prospective TPPA countries
Taken from Annex II-D of the Investment Chapter, page 12-38 at https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf.
Fax numbers and Embassy details have been added where possible, with web pages. These can be checked at http://mfat.govt.nz/Embassies/2-Foreign-representatives-to-NZ/Diplomatic-and-Consular-List.php
It may be fastest for initial contact to scan the Letter Rogatory (which could be one letter copied to all parties) and send it to the Foreign ministers etc concerned via the various email addresses of the High Commissioners / Ambassadors in New Zealand.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
R.G. Casey Building
John McEwen Crescent
Barton ACT 0221
Fax: +61 2 6261 3111
Email not known
Australian High Commission, Wellington
Street Address: 72-76 Hobson Street, Thorndon, Wellington 6011
Postal Address: PO Box 4036, Wellington 6140
Telephone: (04) 473 6411
Facsimile: (04) 498 7139
Office hours: 8.30 a.m.-5 p.m., Mon-Fri
His Excellency Mr Michael Potts, High Commissioner (18 July 2012)
The Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Bandar Seri Begawan, BD 2710
Fax: +673 2 262 476
Office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada
239 Wellington Street
High Commission of Canada, Wellington
Street Address: Level 11, 125 The Terrace, Wellington 6011
Postal Address: PO Box 8047, Wellington 6143
Telephone: (04) 473 9577
Facsimile: (04) 471 2082; (04) 495 4119 (Political)
Office hours: 8.30 a.m.-12.30 p.m., 1.30 p.m.-4.30 p.m., Mon-Fri
Additional Office hours: 8.30 am-12.00 noon, Mon-Fri (Consular)
His Excellency Mr Mario Bot, High Commissioner (29 June 2015)
Dirección de Asuntos Jurídicos del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la República de Chile
Phone: +56 2 2827 4200
Embassy of the Republic of Chile, Wellington
Street Address: Level 4, Pencarrow House, 58-66 Jervois Quay, Wellington 6011
Postal Address: PO Box 3861, Wellington 6140
Telephone: (04) 471 6270
Facsimile: (04) 472 5324
Office hours: 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Mon-Fri
Additional Office hours: 9 a.m.-1 p.m., Mon-Fri (Consular)
His Excellency Mr Isauro Torres Negri, Ambassador (17 April 2012)
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
Embassy of Japan, Wellington
Street Address: Majestic Centre, Level 18, 100 Willis Street, Wellington 6011
Postal Address: PO Box 6340, Marion Square, Wellington 6141
Telephone: (04) 473 1540
Facsimile: (04) 471 2951
Additional Contact Details:
Website: Embassy of Japan in New Zealand
Office hours: 9 a.m.-5 p.m., Mon-Fri; (Chancery, Level 18)
Additional Office hours: 9 a.m-4.30 p.m., Mon-Fri (Consular and Visa section, Level 18)
His Excellency Mr Toshihisa Takata, Ambassador (15 July 2015)
Attorney General’s Chambers
Level 16, No. 45 Persiaran Perdana
Federal Government Administrative Center
High Commission for Malaysia, Wellington
Street Address: 10 Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, Wellington 6021
Postal Address: PO Box 9422, Wellington 6141
Telephone: (04) 385 2439
Facsimile: (04) 385 6973
Office hours: 9 a.m.-1 p.m., 2 p.m.-5 p.m., Mon-Fri
Her Excellency Dato’ Kim Eng Lim, High Commissioner (30 October 2014)
Direccion General de Consultoria Juridica de Comercio Internacional
Alfonso Reyes #30, piso 17
Col. Hipodromo Condesa
Embassy of Mexico, Wellington
Street Address: Level 2, AMP Chambers, 185-187 Featherston Street, Wellington 6011
Postal Address: PO Box 11-510, Manners Street, Wellington 6142
Telephone: (04) 472 0555
Facsimile: (04) 496 3559
Website: Embassy of Mexico in New Zealand
Office hours: 9 a.m. -5 p.m., Mon-Fri
Additional Office hours: 9 a.m. -2 p.m., Mon-Fri (Consular)
Her Excellency Ms Rosaura Leonora Rueda Gutierrez, Ambassador (15 September 2011)
Dirección General de Asuntos de Economía Internacional,
Competencia y Productividad
Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas
Jirón Lampa 277, piso 5
Embassy of the Republic of Peru, Canberra (for NZ)
Street Address: 40 Brisbane Avenue, Barton, ACT 2600, Australia
Postal Address: PO Box 106, Redhill, ACT 2603, Australia
Telephone: (61 2) 6273 7351; (61 2) 6273 7352
Facsimile: (61 2) 6273 7354
Office hours: 9 a.m.-4 p.m., Mon-Fri
His Excellency Mr Luis Felipe Quesada Inchaustegui, Ambassador (31 March 2011)
Ministry of Trade & Industry
100 High Street #09-01
Singapore High Commission, Wellington
Street Address: 17 Kabul Street, Khandallah, Wellington 6035
Postal Address: PO Box 13-140, Johnsonville, Wellington 6440
Telephone: (04) 470 0850; (04) 464 0030 (Defence Adviser)
Facsimile: (04) 479 4066; (04) 464 0024 (Defence Adviser)
Office hours: 9 a.m.-1 p.m., 1.45 p.m.-5 p.m., Mon-Fri
Additional Office hours: 9 a.m.-5 p.m., (Consular); 9 a.m.-1 p.m., (Visa application hours)
His Excellency Mr Bernard Baker, High Commissioner (15 July 2015)
Mrs Susan Baker
Executive Director (L/EX)
Office of the Legal Advisor
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
United States of America
Embassy of the United States of America, Wellington
Street Address: 29 Fitzherbert Terrace, Wellington 6011
Postal Address: PO Box 1190, Wellington 6140
Telephone: (04) 462 6000
Facsimile: (04) 472 3537
Email: call for email
Office hours: 8.15 a.m.-5 p.m., Mon-Fri
His Excellency Mr Mark Gilbert, Ambassador (9 February 2015)
Department of International Law
Ministry of Justice
60 Tran Phu Street
Ba Dinh District
Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, Wellington
Street Address: Level 21, Grand Plimmer Tower, 2-6 Gilmer Terrace, Wellington 6011
Postal Address: PO Box 8042, Wellington 6143
Telephone: (04) 473 5912
Facsimile: (04) 473 5913
Additional Contact Details: (021) 898 814
Office hours: 9.00am-12.00noon; 2.00pm-5.00pm, Mon-Fri
His Excellency Mr Viet Dung Nguyen, Ambassador (17 September 2014).
Apparently there’s a general election in New Zealand in a couple of weeks. Haven’t paid it much attention to be honest, such is the likely absurdity and irrelevance of the narcissistic bickering that has no doubt gone down.
However we thought we’d share this little nugget with you.
Whoever you vote for in Parliament, you still get Parliament. And with Parliament, you still get the Crown. And the Crown does not work for you. It works for its creditors.
So, voting? It’s called a false choice, mateys!
It doesn’t matter, you see, if the goons in the Beehive are mostly right-wing, or left wing, or somewhere in the middle. They will still, such is the nature of the Crown, hurt you – whether it’s by right-hooking you for three years, or left-hooking you, or just kicking you straight in the nuts. Alternatively, as with the unanimous passing of the Food Bill, they’ll all gang up and lay it on you at the same time.
“How is this possible?” you may cry. “How was I deceived thusly, and left with a swollen face, and such sore nuts?”
Well, it’s because the Crown is not what most people think it is (if they’ve thought about it at all). As we’ve said before, the Crown is in fact set up as a corporate vehicle for transferring the material wealth of this nation via securities – principally from the people of this country, and principally to the international banks that lend New Zealand paper or electronic money at interest.
This Crown corporation – and it is a corporation – is registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. It’s called Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand. Just go online and check it out. You’ll even find listings of its assets and liabilities, complete with its “legal” claims – all key info for corporate asset-strippers.
Not convinced? Well, think about it. We’ve had a banker Prime Minister for six years. During that time, the national debt has gone through the roof and our dear leader has been selling off the nation’s assets and mineral rights all over the place, with the justification of paying off the debts that HE hooked up for HIS international banker friends. Of course he’s sold the nation’s assets for a song, too, and probably to the same people he arranged the loans with, or to his other mates, or simply to himself.
The dude has mortgaged the country to the hilt. You’re paying for it with poverty and pollution. And it is all possible through the vehicle that is the Crown. Is this not self-evident?
Vote Labour and expect more of the same, just with a different colour. You’ll still get Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand and its vampire creditors. They’ll just be chewing on another part of you. Whichever part you choose, actually.
So what is the point of this post? It’s about Mandate. If less than half the eligible voters vote, then under the true principles of democracy the Crown does not have a mandate to rule. That’s the way we see it, anyway, because we have a brain. If more than half the eligible voters vote, then the Crown does have a mandate.
Chances are that more than half will vote (probably 52% or thereabouts) and chances are that most of those will vote for the banker – this in spite of the fact that bankers have been self-evident scum since the 2008 financial crisis, and also in spite of the fact that he’s selling off our national assets and vast chunks of conservation land for mining.
If more than half vote and he does get in, then the enormity of the ignorance of the people of this nation will have revealed itself. If more than half vote and the other fella swings it (whoever he is) then expect fun and games of a different sort. Either way, you’ll have to live with it, and you’ll have yourself and your fellow kiwis to thank.
However if 51% of eligible voters think “screw it” and go to the pub instead (assuming they can afford to) – then, and only then, will you actually have something to celebrate. Because the Emperor will be democratically revealed as having no clothes. That is, by the numbers.
Are you going to be part of that 51%? We hope so!
Remember, if you vote, you’re just voting in the Board of Directors of a company that wants your stuff, so it can give it to its creditors. Nothing more. All legislation is written with this transfer of your wealth in mind. Read it, and you’ll see. They’re called Bills, after all. Bills you pay – through fines, taxation, polluted water, even imprisonment (which contrary to popular opinion makes money for the state, through goods produced and as a hedge against people not being a compliant little tax slaves).
So, don’t vote. Don’t listen to children like Lorde either, who say you your vote counts but know nothing of the above. Just take the day off, raise a glass and proclaim the toast: “No clothes!”
Then look for the voter turnout stats, not the relative number of votes cast. Those stats will reveal the true winner.
Without a Crown mandate, what comes next would be uncertain. But we have faith that with the public a tad more educated, reason will prevail.
May the force be with you.
Please share, and consider donating.
Veto used constitutional law of New Zealand and requires the Queen to intervene in order to protect the sovereignty enshrined in New Zealand’s founding documents. Speaker is TPP Action Group member, Greg Rzesniowiecki.
For more information, see Here.
Share and duplicate at will.
To block the TPPA, see here.
Video notes: Police and parliament security are caught unawares by the vigour of the rebellious revellers, who give Prime Minister John Key the finger and turn the steps of the Beehive into a mosh-pit. Golden moment: “Come on Auntie, let’s go and have a dance.” Please share!
States that NZ Crown has no due authority to sign, requests that other countries do not sign with the Crown and warns that TPPA will be void on New Zealand’s part if they do.
Posted herewith as a matter of record and timing. Letter dated 27 July 2015, but seems to have been sent today (26 July 2015). 2015-07-27 TPPA Letter _ TPPA Australia
Others please follow their example as you see fit.
Kia kaha. Please share by clicking below.
Treason is defined as “The crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government” (Oxford English Dictionary). It is further defined as “The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith” (Dictionary.com). It comes from the Latin traditio(n-) ‘handing over’.
>Please SHARE at bottom<
It seems, therefore, that handing over control of New Zealand’s food supply to a foreign power – especially when doing so is likely to harm the people of the country – would rather fit the bill.
Yet that is exactly what is going to happen this week, perhaps as early as tomorrow, when the Food Bill is “approved” by the parties in Parliament. That’s right, they’re probably not even going to vote on it, such is its unanimous support. There was no vote for its second reading, despite 43,000 people signing a petition opposing it – it was just rubber-stamped under the smokescreen of the Budget.
Sure, there was a close vote on what would have been a useful amendment to the Bill (introducing Country of Origin labelling). But that was a sideshow, and a rather obvious one, designed to give the impression that the Food Bill was not a done deal already – and only for anyone who was looking. The whole treatment has been a smoke and mirrors job, and everyone in Parliament has been complicit, or at best negligent. This represents a collective and cynical breach of the public trust.
So how exactly does the Food Bill hand over control of the food supply, and to whom? We should be sure of this, as should our Members of Parliament (some of them have been informed directly – particularly those on the Select Committee, through notices given to them. The rest, if doing their job, should have investigated the rumours).
Well, it binds the Crown, and its subjects, into adhering to regulations that have not yet been published but will be put in place by Orders in Council made by the Governor-General (on the recommendation of a Minister). These regulations will be made to, under Section 314 (b) (iia) “give effect to New Zealand’s obligations under a relevant international agreement, convention, protocol, or treaty” (even if these have not yet been agreed).
And in case you’re wondering what an Order in Council is, it’s basically law by decree that is only normally used in an emergency, and is immune from Parliamentary oversight. From Wikipedia, which is basically right on this issue: “Traditionally, Orders in Council are used as a way for the Prime Minister to make political appointments, but they can also be used to issue simple laws as a sort of decree. Often in times of emergency, a government may issue legislation directly through Orders in Council, forgoing the usual parliamentary procedure” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_in_Council).
So to be completely clear, the Food Bill basically allows the Government to use emergency powers to make regulations that are in keeping with international agreements – even though we do not yet know what those regulations or agreements are.
We’ve got a good idea, though. The principal obligations that the bill refers to are New Zealand’s obligations under Codex Alimentarius (see here – NZ is obligated under FSANZ with Australia). Codex is a rulebook for food production and sale straight out of the USA’s Food and Agriculture Organisation – a body that is basically just a front for big agribusiness (yes, especially Monsanto). And the rulebook is being forced on all World Trade Organization members, with the threat of the loss of trade if they do not comply.
The Food Bill is not about Food Safety, it’s about trade – and control. In fact it’s going to push up the price of food massively through regulations – expect basic staples prices to double in two to three years. If this combines with a further financial collapse (which is coming, due to the pyramidal architecture of the Fractional Reserve Banking system, though of course that’s not mentioned here)… well, then you could seriously see kiwis starving. Some are already.
And set against this picture, if New Zealanders sell or even barter food without permission from the Government – even if it is to prevent people going hungry in their communities – they can be fined $100,000 and thrown in prison for two years (Section 203 (3) (b)).
This is some sick stuff that is going down. Don’t be fooled. The bill is about control, greed and service to big business by parliamentarians who, everyone thinks, are supposed to be working for the people of the country.
Fortunately there are ways to get around the Food Bill – soon to be the Food Act. But it will require people to wake up from the principal illusion that parliament, and government, work for the people. They do not.
It will also require people to look to their own power, agency and – should they have it – sovereignty. And then use it.
PS The common law crime of misprision of treason is knowing that a treasonous act is going to take place and doing nothing to stop it. It applies both to Parliamentarians who don’t break ranks with their party and, well, you, if you don’t do something about it.
The following may be useful 😉
Police – Wellington Central
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Kelvin.firstname.lastname@example.org, Jacqui.email@example.com, Catherine.firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Kennedy.firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Raymond.email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, A.King@parliament.govt.nz, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Iain.email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, WOAoffice@xtra.co.nz, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Phil.Major@parliament.govt.nz, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Pita.Sharples@parliament.govt.nz, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Tari.Turia@xtra.co.nz, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Upston.email@example.com, Upston.firstname.lastname@example.org, Upston.email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Michael.firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org