I think someone forgot about the Epidemic Preparedness Bill, anyway the NZPA and NZ Herald report as below....

Ministry says no need for Key to trigger special epidemic powers

Health officials say they have no plans for Prime Minister John Key to issue an "epidemic notice" - a key legal step to trigger special powers for regional medical officers of health.

"The illness that this pandemic is causing is not severe enough to warrant the use of the powers that issuing the notice would permit," Fran McGrath, deputy director of public health told NZPA.

A total of 127 cases has been confirmed in New Zealand, up 18 from 109 yesterday, and 105 of them are current cases.

There are also 20 probable cases.

The cumulative total of confirmed cases by region are:

Auckland 42, Waikato 4, Bay of Plenty/Lakes 3, Hawke's Bay 1, Wanganui/Palmerston North 1, Wellington 27, Nelson/Marlborough 1 and Canterbury 30.

Under an epidemic notice, authorised by the prime minister, regional medical officers of health have the power to:

* Require people to submit to medical examination or testing at specified times and places;

* Require persons, places, buildings, ships, vehicles, aircraft, animals or things to be tested, isolated, quarantined or disinfected as they think fit;

* Restrict the movement of people and vehicles;

* Set up emergency hospitals;

* Restrict public gatherings;

* Close any premises, except for Parliament and private homes;

* Call on police to use reasonable force if they need that to carry out their duties.

Dr McGrath said the current priority was containment of the virus, which was estimated to have a "reproductive value" of 1.4, which meant that every two people who fell ill were expected to transmit the disease to three other people.

"Increased spread of the virus could overwhelm the health services during the already busy winter season," she said.

"While the virus in the main causes moderate illness in most people, there is an increased risk for some groups such as those with a chronic disease and pregnancy."

The country was still in a "containment phase", she said.

Containment involved both border management and stamping out clusters of the virus spread.

Doctors were telling arriving travellers that only people with flu-like symptoms within four days of overseas travel were now considered to be at risk of having the swine flu form of the A(H1N1) virus.

But as more cases were confirmed in the community the focus would shift to boosting the way care was provided in the community, Dr McGrath said.

Planning for this "manage it" phase provided for community-based health services to manage large numbers of people with influenza as well as maintain services for patients with other illnesses.

As much as 30 per cent of the population was expected to contract the swine flu, but the symptoms, which included fever, coughing, a sore throat and often diarrhoea, disappeared after about five days.

In this "manage it" phase, many people would be sent home to look after themselves - in the same way they would with seasonal flu.

They would be told to stay home for seven days after the start of symptoms or until they have been symptom-free for 24 hours - whichever was longer.

Health officials expected most ill New Zealanders would be able to nurse themselves at home, though an Australian expert has warned asthma and A(H1N1) flu were a potentially deadly mix.

Dr Matthew Peters, head of respiratory medicine at a Sydney Hospital, said chronic heart or lung disease and diabetes were common ailments that could dramatically escalate the risk posed by the virus.

"Around 40 per cent of admissions to hospital with swine flu-related illnesses in the US have been in people with asthma," he said.

Asked to what extent the ministry was looking to the two-week school holidays due to start on July 3 as a potential "firebreak" in reducing the rate of community transmission, Dr McGrath said the school holidays "may be very useful as a break".

Link

- NZPA

This was covered in a leak in some part and prediction by Red Pill (me, the admin of this blog which formerly went by the alias of Ghostface) dating back to July and Sept 2006 and also June 2008. This blog's archive tool will help you find other posts like this too that are related.

Original links of this as reference is...

http://uncensored.co.nz/2008/06/20/counterterrorism-exercises-in-dunedin/#comment-1004

http://uncensored.co.nz/2008/06/20/counterterrorism-exercises-in-dunedin/#comment-1017

http://www.geocities.com/a3dem/The_Orr_of_the_Epidemic.pdf

To summarize...
The main point was the 2011 World Cup plan by the elite was predicted by me three years back after much research and for the last two-three years more and more armed forces have been training with specialist exercises in helicopters and this all started with me digging up about Bird Flu as it just sounds ridiculous by name. Clare Swinney from Uncensored Magazine can even state in late 2005 i SMS'd her to look up at the sky for black helicopters in Northland close to where i was at the time monitoring this activity of SAS and specialist military like police (STG like) and she was not far away also. As for bird flu in N.Z I wanted to debunk it basically as rubbish as first thoughts were, a human contracting a deadly flu virus by bird or airborn? bullshit! Thing being this can only be man-made with alot of money and resources, only which PHARMA's and Govt could be possible of doing as it needs modification, enhancement and genetics manipulation. On the side of military big business, we host such places in NZ like Waihopai, Tangimoana, Tennex, HeliCorp and Rakon as examples of some.

Mainstream NZ herald basically wrote the article below the dotted lines (in limited casing, no cause and effect analysis and it's a bit late as i mentioned this 3 years back)

-------------------------

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562047

17 Mar 2009

Army heads are calling for recruits from the armed forces to man an anti-terror squad responsible for domestic security.

A defence source last night said the recruitment drive was prompted by "a surge in the global war on terrorism".

The unit would also be responsible for dealing with any security threats at the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

More than 60,000 overseas visitors are expected for the six-week tournament in September and October 2011.

Twenty countries will participate in the 48-game event, the third largest international sports event in the world.

An advertisement in this month's Army News said "international developments" had heightened the need for "an effective on call counter-terrorist capability" in New Zealand.

Army, Navy and Air Force personnel are encouraged to join the group, which is known as the Counter Terrorist Tactical Assault Group.

Another army source said recruits had been called for on previous occasions.

In 2006, it was reported the CTTAG was formed after the SAS struggled to recruit enough personnel to cover an increasing international workload and fulfil its counter-terrorist role at home.

CTTAG training was tough but, unlike the SAS, did not have an emphasis on "breaking in" an individual.

Instead, the unit focuses on building teamwork, improving shooting skills and helping squad members overcoming phobias such as fear of heights.

Terrorist attacks such as that on the Sri Lanken cricket team in Pakistan this month were evidence of the need for security at large-scale sports events, the source said.

The security bill for the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, next year is expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Army News advertisement said it was intended the New Zealand SAS group "will continue to deliver the current range of Special Forces capabilities, [and] an enhanced Counter Terrorist Tactical Assault Group will provide the critical domestic counter terrorist role for the New Zealand Defence Force".

The Officials Committee for Domestic and External Security Co-ordination currently deals with terrorism threats in New Zealand and the Police Commissioner is accountable for the operational response to threats to national security.

The CTTAG will work with existing anti-terrorist organisations including police groups such as the special tactics groups, armed offender squads, diplomatic protection squad and specialist search group.

Fornote: Freedom New Zealand stands behind all the Unions against the spying and using an anti-terrorism unit for spying is much like that used in industrial America and Soviet Union days. The nanny police state of New Zealand is incognito with mechanism of big brother, an acknowledgment of more than rights being violated and the government rising to to much power, which one day Martial law will be declared if/when things get worse - thats if we dont change things. Here is where liberals become anarchists and eventually anarchists become revolutionaries.

The decision to lay new charges against five of the Urewera activists has been described as "ludicrous" by supporters of the defendants.

Global Peace and Justice spokesman John Minto said authorities had "failed to brand" the activists as terrorists so the charges were nothing more than an attempt to "brand them as criminals".

Tame Iti, Emily Bailey, Urs Signer, Tuhoi Lambert and Whiri Kemara are all expected to be charged within the next few weeks with participating in a criminal gang.

The charge, which carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment, will be added to firearm charges the individuals are already facing.

Those charges were laid more than a year ago against 17 people who were alleged to have participated in weapons-training camps around the country.

Police had originally wanted to charge the group under the Terrorism Suppression Act but that was not allowed by the Solicitor-General, who said the legislation was flawed.

Yesterday, politicians were reluctant to comment on the new charges. Prime Minister Helen Clark and National leader John Key had no comment to make, while Police Minister Annette King said the first she knew about it was when she read the story in the Herald yesterday morning.

Iti said he had been told not to talk to the media about the latest charges and referred all queries to his lawyer, Annette Sykes. Ms Sykes did not return the Weekend Herald's calls.

"Why lay these charges more than a year after the arrests?" asked Mr Minto। "It seems the police will leave no stone unturned in trying to make the case look more serious than it is and in the process to salvage some credibility from the hopeless mess they have got themselves into."

- NZ Herald

Fresh charges are to be laid against some of those seized in the Urewera police raids - more than a year after they were arrested.

Five of the 18 people arrested during the nationwide operation last October are to face new allegations of participating in a criminal gang.

One of the five is Maori activist Tame Iti.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and has angered supporters of the accused, who claim the Government is trying to save face after failing in an attempt to bring charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Seventeen of the 18 defendants charged with firearms offences were committed to trial last month.

They were alleged to have participated in weapons-training camps at various locations around the country.

But the Crown has added new charges of participating in a criminal gang in a draft indictment sent to lawyers of five of the accused.

The new charge would be laid under section 98A of the Crimes Act and is expected to be added to the list of charges the five already face.

Because it is more serious than the firearms charges, it will have to be heard in the High Court.

A group called Justice Now Collective, which is supporting the accused and their families, last night reacted angrily to the new charges saying they were "a desperate attempt by the Government to save face after the Solicitor-General found insufficient evidence to bring charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act".

Police originally wanted to charge all of the accused with offences under the Terrorism Suppression Act but that was not allowed by Solicitor-General David Collins, QC, who said the legislation was flawed.

Instead police laid firearms-related charges under the Arms Act.

All but one of the 18 who were originally charged were committed to trial on those charges at a depositions hearing in the Auckland District Court last month.

More than 300 charges were heard at that hearing.

Some charges, relating to three of the alleged camps, were dismissed by Judge Mark Perkins, who found there was insufficient evidence to support them.

But Crown Prosecutor Ross Burns said last night the crown would be re-laying those charges in the same indictment with the new charges.

Justice Now Collective spokeswoman Sally Darity criticised that decision.

"This is part of a systematic attack on Maori communities," she said.

"The Government's support of the war on terrorism in the passage of a raft of anti-terrorism laws and expanded police and Security Intelligence Service budgets confirm their agenda to control the population through surveillance and brutal repression of any genuine dissent."

The Crown is entitled to reinstate charges if it believes there is sufficient evidence to support them, as not all available evidence is presented at a depositions hearing.

The other four defendants facing the new charge are Emily Bailey, Urs Signer, Tuhoi Lambert and Whiri Kemara.

A YEAR ON
* October 15, 2007: Police raid several properties including suspected weapons-training camps. Several people are arrested on firearms charges, with the possibility of more serious charges being laid under anti-terrorism laws.
* November 8, 2007: Solicitor General David Collins, QC, rules against the police's application to charge the accused under the Terrorism Suppression Act.
* October 17, 2008: Charges are dropped against one of the accused, Rongomai Pero Bailey. The remaining 17 are on bail awaiting trial.
* October 28: After a month of depositions hearings, the Crown issues an indictment charging five of the accused with participation in a criminal gang under the Crimes Act.

- NZ Herald

In 2001, the United States launched the 'war on terrorism' in purported response to the September 11th attacks. With hasty process, the New Zealand government quickly signed up. But what is this war really about? The agenda of the 'war on terrorism' is very different to the propaganda we are being sold by politicians and the mass media. It is an agenda of domination and control over our lives and the extension of state and corporate power.

Against Freedom, written by Valerie Morse, details the agenda against freedom, from the legislative changes since 9/11 to the suppression of dissent and the media manipulation of public understanding, in order to provide an alternative view of what is happening and what can be done to stop the war.

Download Against Freedom, the book in PDF format here

A significant reduction in prison drug use is expected to be one direct result of new technology which is being introduced to block cellphone use.

From February, cutting edge technology will mean cellphones will not work in jails.

Corrections Association President Beven Hanlon says at the moment it is impossible to stop prisoners using cellphones, as inmates are skilled at hiding them.

He says the new technology will prevent a lot of crime on the inside and outside, as prisoners will not be able to use their phones to organise drug drops or plan escapes.

Mr Hanlon says the technology has been trialled in Hawke's Bay and appears to be working, however he says there is still one gap in the strategy.

He says at the moment mail is checked at random but the rules need to be changed so that letters and packages can be more thoroughly scrutinised.

Detention

Overall, the Immigration Bill extends the period that migrants can be held in detention by Police without charge or warrant, from the current 72 hours to 96 hours. Routinely, this will mean being held in police cells, even though the UN and NGO agencies have been pointing out to the NZ government for the best part of a decade the need for non-penal facilities for the assessing of migrants and asylum seekers. Several clauses do allow the NZIS to designate other premises as detention centres, but prisons are the only ones identified.

Immigration officers themselves will be able to detain people for up to four hours without a warrant. Clause 272 (e) allows detention for up to 96 hours of anyone suspected by an immigration officer or by a member of police of possibly constituting a threat or a risk to security.

At the very least, these clauses extend the power of the New Zealand police to hold people in detention without charge, pending checks on whether the suspects are liable, or not, for deportation. While 72 hours was previously possible, the general norm already seems to be shorter, and this calls into question the need for any extension to the 96 hours envisaged - for administrative convenience – under the Bill. Why is this necessary ? It does not seem to be required, with respect to criminal offences. In its November 2007 comparative study of detention practices ( called Charge or Release ) the British human rights organization Liberty concluded :
In New Zealand, persons arrested must be charged "promptly". There is no
fixed definition of "prompt" but case law on this question indicates that pre-
charge detention of more than 48 hours would not be considered "prompt".

Deportation

In a welcome move, the Immigration Bill does enshrine various UN conventions – including the Convention Against Torture - in our domestic law. However, in my earlier post, I outlined how the Immigration Bill violates key provisions of that same UN Convention Against Torture – by, for instance requiring ( see clause 122b ) an asylum seeker to prove they would face a worse risk of torture if returned home, than would be usual in their country.

As written, clause 122 would allow New Zealand to return victims of mass torture and persecution, back into the hands of their torturers. Clause 132 allows for people to have their status as refugees or protected persons revoked, if the NZIS judges, in its wisdom, that circumstances have changed in their country enough to allow their safe return – or even, if a new NZIS officer happens to re-think an earlier decision made by a previous officer.

The even murkier aspect is whether New Zealand can arrange to return asylum seekers to a so called ' safe' third country – or on the basis of diplomatic assurances or promises that the person will not be tortured, or returned to where they would be tortured or persecution. The real trouble with ' diplomatic assurances' is that they are quite unenforceable - in a notorious case, Sweden returned two Egyptian asylum seekers back to Egypt, and the Swedes found out too late that Egypt's diplomatic promise not to torture the duo was not worth the paper it was written on.

Commonly, these diplomatic assurances entail the recipient countries ( Libya, Algeria et al) promising, with hand on heart, that they recognize the Convention Against Torture – even as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch report on the extent of torture by security services.

On this point, clause 125 is the relevant part of the Immigration Bill. It creates an initial gateway decision by the immigration officer to consider a claim for refugee or protection status, based on whether the immigration officer feels that the applicant could find refuge in some other country. Moreover, clause 125 (2) (b) allows for the decision frame to include whether "relevant international agreements or agreement have, or could be lodged" for protection in another country. To my knowledge, New Zealand currently has no such agreements that would allow it to shuttle its asylum seekers elsewhere – so, this can only be an example of future proofing, a provision to allow the NZIS to pursue such agreements in future.

At it stands, the vagueness of clause 125 heightens the risk of return to torture, in violation of New Zealand's commitments under the UN Refugee Convention. At the very least, the issue of alternative countries of refuge and associated risks should be treated as part of the claim, and not entrusted to some desk officer as a reason to reject the claim at the outset. In addition, New Zealand should not be entertaining the prospect of diplomatic assurances and the bogus rationale they provide for offloading asylum seekers into situations of peril. The reality facing New Zealand is that fewer and fewer asylum seekers are getting here to claim protection - and the best international practice is headed towards the scrapping of diplomatic assurances, not the embracing of them.

In February 2008 for instance the European Court of Human Rights ( in a major case called Saadi vs Italy) stopped the deportation from Italy of one Nissam Saadi, back to his homeland in Tunisia. The deportation was refused, despite the fact that Italy had sought and got assurances from the Tunisian government that it did not practice torture, and voluntarily accepted all of the relevant UN conventions. The sceptical Court found instead that :

"The existence of domestic laws and accession to international treaties guaranteeing respect for fundamental rights in principle are not in themselves sufficient to ensure adequate protection against the risk of ill-treatment where, as in the present case, reliable sources have reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the authorities which are manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention.

Diplomatic assurances, the Court went on, did not remove the obligation to examine whether such assurances in practice provided a sufficient guarantee that the applicant would be protected against the risk of the cruel and degrading treatments prohibited by the Convention. "The weight to be given to assurances from the receiving State depends, in each case, on the circumstances obtaining at the material time."

Exactly. Yet judging by New Zealand's readiness to take at face value the European convictions against Ahmed Zaoui - convictions later found, when tested, to be quite irrelevant to his alleged risk to our national security – it is hard to see the NZIS vigorously adopting a stance of healthy scepticism towards the convenient agreements envisaged under clause 125. It would be far safer if clause 125(2) (b) in particular was dropped from the Bill entirely.

That's probably enough for now. One should also mention in passing though the very short timeframes that migrants have for gathering and filing the complex factual and humanitarian grounds for appeal against deportation. Or the unilateral ability of the Minister in clause 152 to deport people by Order in Council…and so on., and so on. .

On July 21, we will all get a clear idea of just how diligently the officials who advised the select committee have responded to the criticisms of the Bill voiced by the Privacy Commissioner, UNHCR, the Law Society, the Zaoui legal team and the dozens of other people and organisations that made submissions. It seems unlikely the Bill will be substantially revised – and if it isn't, it deserves to become an albatross around the neck of the Labour government.

- Source

Clauses 250-252 of the Bill confer on Immigration Service officiazls officials the kind of powers that we normally concede – for good reason – only to police officers. All the NZIS officer will need is the belief that 'reasonable grounds' exist, and he can proceed to apprehend any person who is, or appears likely to be, in New Zealand unlawfully.

Nor are those powers restricted to land. An official can - without a warrant - enter and search any craft within New Zealand territorial waters, interview anyone, and identify anyone seated with them. Similarly the official can, without a warrant, enter and search any part of the foreshore, port, bay, harbour, lake, or river - or any port premises, wharfs or transit buildings, piers or structures attached to or extending from a shore or a bank.

Under clause 253, any immigration officer can enter any building or premises without a warrant – at any 'reasonable' time of day or night, unspecified – if they believe someone they may be wishing to serve with a deportation notice may be present. Once a potential deportee is located, the officer is them empowered to photograph, measure, and take finger, palm and foot prints of that person, and subject them to iris scans on suspicion that such a person could be liable for deportation, or is (255c) 'undertaking work or a course of study' that the person may not be entitled to.

In essence, immigration officers are being provided with a toolkit of powers that could be used for either genuine detection - or for the equivalent of dawn raids, with virtual impunity. The fact that reasonable belief – rather than a warrant – allows such intrusions leaves the door wide open to abuse. Throughout the Bill immigration officers are granted power to make sweeping unilateral judgments ( eg see clause 133) about the validity and the completeness of the information before them, and the bona fides of the individuals concerned – and can then proceed to cancel refugee and protection status, with far-reaching impact on migrants and their families.

The net cast by such search and entry provisions is wide. It can apply to those providing work, or accommodation, for suspects. Under clause 241 (3 people are required to provide information about someone who is, or may become liable for deportation, and information on their present or past whereabouts – and also about the occupiers past and present of premises where they may have worked or resided. Under the same clause, any employer or employee may be required to provide, or allow the official to copy " any record or information held by or reasonably available to that person," and no one can be held legally liable ( clause 241 (4) in civil or criminal proceedings for what happens as the result of the use or disclosure of such confidential information.

Once issued by an immigration officer with a relevant certificate, the list of organizations that must provide address information to the NZIS include : the Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand, education providers, telecommunication service providers, internet service providers, postal providers, insurance companies, banks, local government bodies, real estate agents, employers and former employers.

Clause 270 of the Bill empowers the chief executive of the Immigration Service to disclose categories of personal information by agreement with any overseas agency, body or person engaged in border security, or in processing international passengers, or in detecting or investigating immigration 'or other' offences.

That ' or other offences' phrase makes this a potentially wide provision, well beyond immigration purposes. Under it, a variety of agencies can enter into an agreement with NZIS to receive such information as - the Bill stipulates - airline passenger and crew lists, the past travel movements of specified people and any previous convictions they may have.

Under clause 270(e) this agency or person agency can also acquire "the general history of specified people, which may include associates and networks." Also to be made available to foreign agencies : information about the 'modus operandi' of specified people, their currency transactions, intelligence assessments and reports, details of mail interceptions, personal identification details, and details of known or suspected involvement of people in illicit activities.

Got that? On request, personal details that go beyond the suspected individual and based on grounds nothing stronger than suspicion about them – can be provided to a range of security and law enforcement agencies overseas, and to those involved with the processing of international passengers. Note that the CEO of the NZIS can supply ' intelligence assessments and reports' on request to any of those overseas agencies - even though the classified reports would be denied on grounds of national security to the person in New Zealand most affected by them !

- Source

Few Labour voters may realise the full extent of what the Clark government has in mind - or has allowed to get out of hand - with its rewrite of the 1987 Immigration Act. To date, the parties on the centre right (National, Act, United Future) have also shown little interest in the Immigration Bill's sweeping extensions of state power, while the anti-immigrant crew within New Zealand First must be thinking all their Christmasses have come at once.

Under this legislation, it is proposed that immigration officials should be given powers of entry to business premises and private homes and enhanced powers of search, seizure and detention without warrant. The CEOs of any government department or agency will be able to decree information as classified, and thus put it beyond direct access or query by the people most affected by it. Access even to a summary of what is being alleged will be conditional, and at the state's discretion.

Even if allowed, a summary of allegations can be made as skeletal and un-informative as the state decides. Firstly, any such summary will be only of the allegations arising from the information, and need not summarise the information itself. Secondly, clause 216 of the Bill says the summary will not be required to list any of the documents, or detail any of their contents or contain anything that might identify the source of any of the allegations. Good luck with mounting a viable defence - against whatever it is the state thinks you have done - under such conditions.

There's more. The Bill empowers Immigration officials to compel people to provide biometric information without the Bill containing firm guidelines or procedures for the use, retention, security, accuracy, storage and sharing of such data. There is no overt statement about the relation of the new Bill to the Privacy Act, or support for its protections on fair handling of personal information and bodily integity. There is only the kind of vague mention found at clause 92, which opens up more problems than it resolves - by saying ( incorrectly) that the Privacy Act gives immigration officers power to ' further deal' with the personal data they have collected and retained.

Clause 92 of the Bill also says that New Zealand citizens returning home can be compelled to have photographs taken of them - "subject to regulations" made under the Bill - in order to prove they are who their passports say they are. A close reading of the biometric information definition clause (at p 20 of the Bill) indicates these mandatory photographs need not be restricted to facial photographs - a concern that was raised by some of those who made submissions on the Bill. So much for bodily integrity.

The Immigration Bill is now before the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee, and is due to be reported back to the House on June 30. In the House last year, then Immigration Minister David Cunliffe boasted that the legislation would reflect international best practice standards.

It doesn't. In fact, New Zealand plans to enshrine in law – clauses 215 (5) 216 (4-5) and 235 -239 are the key parts - the use of special advocates in classified information situations.

- Source

It started in Dunedin yesterday, and will run 24 hours a day until noon on Friday.

Police Deputy Commissioner Rob Pope said the exercise had been planned over "many months" and was designed to realistically test the groups as if there was a national security threat.

"It is not to suggest that New Zealand's security risk level has been heightened, but we need to train to an appropriate level to test our counterterrorism capability."

It was a government requirement that agencies were ready for a terrorist attack, should it occur.

Agencies involved include the police, defence, customs, biosecurity, maritime safety, immigration, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the fire service and health agencies.

He could not elaborate on what the exercise involved, but said it would cause minimal disruption to Dunedin residents.

Most of the action would take place in central Dunedin and the harbour area, with some activities understood to be on Quarantine Is in Otago Harbour.

"Residents in the areas involved may see emergency service personnel and vehicles, including helicopters, at various times throughout the exercise."

Mr Pope said detailing what was to happen in the exercise would defeat its purpose.

Exercises such as this had been held throughout the country in recent years, but he could not recall one of the same magnitude in Dunedin.

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/9798/counterterrorism-exercises-city

As I don't believe any new laws should be passed for cops to all have guns, I believe this should occur below
- the admittance from the N.Z Police that senior officers do have police firearms in the locked boots of there cars.
- that a Senior Sgt. arrived at the scene of a recent shooting in Manurewa, however this has suffered much criticism and debate of why no instant action was taken.

I look at this proposal...

Rules of engagement 'to possess, present and fire'. This would outline that when a crime of violent nature occurred or that major concerns in life or death situations were raised, a allowance for a senior officer to possess or possibly present a firearm would be justified, given that it has been witnessed and not under duress by at least one witness or other member of police.

However to note that toys guns at this point being played with could end up being a very bad thing and someone playing with a toy gun and being identified in mistake could get shot. Which has happened but no one got shot, but still it's possible. I refer to a few weeks back on a NZ cop show, that a member of police was pursuing a car covertly which had been reported with someone holding a gun in. When it pulled up in a supermarket car park, a 'police dog handler' or similar dressed member emerging from a police ute or station-wagon presented and aimed with what looked like a 9mm glock pistol. Moments later, it was a kid in the passenger seat of his mum's car and it was a toy.

Furthermore SFP aka Secured First Point, are usually part of the procedure entering any such bad scene for a crime, also that cordons with police being mobile and stationary are usually part of procedure. So a independent formal inquiry should be conducted on any fuck-up's by police at this point.

We don't need a militarized police state, we could just be then just all out, if the gangs in South Auckland, the police and supporters of the idea 'cops with guns' want this to be like L.A, U.S.A, then fuck them we will be just like the yanks and declare the constitution, A RIGHT TO ARM OURSELVES TO PROTECT OUR LIVES AND PROPERTY. I'm not religous, a gun nut and obviously against violence and the N.W.O, but a maxim of law in logic is don't steal and don't hurt others (murder included). If you don't like someone or don't have something, think the risk of your life and others just for those thoughts of greed, jealousy and immaturity. If you don't care about that well, fuck you we will shoot you, your the problem that is being spoken of and you have no emotion and no respect for human life.

So screw waiting for pussy arse cops to show up or even walk into the scene, let's see if they would delay and hesitate if there car was being broken into outside late one night, further more the different scenarios with off duty cop with gun/no gun and offender having gun/no gun.

Lastly to show you the clear evidence senior ranked police already have firearms refer to the below article dated 24 Oct. 2004....

24 October 2004

Carrying guns in a holster on the hip is still not routine for New Zealand police officers - but don't ask to see what's under their armpits or in their car boots. Rachel Grunwell reports on the police officer's arsenal.

Senior frontline police carry as many as six firearms in the boots of their cars.

While New Zealand police can still claim to be among the few left in the world not openly armed, a Sunday Star-Times investigation has revealed weapons are close at hand in many situations.

A range of squads and officers attending emergencies are likely to be carrying guns - but police are instructed to keep arms strictly away from public view.

Senior officers have weapons locked in the boots of their vehicles in case they need to hand out guns to staff in an emergency. These officers include emergency response police, Crime Investigation Bureau staff, dog handlers and some rural police.

Special squads who are routinely armed include:

- Diplomatic Protection Squad officers - the dark-suited men with ear-pieces who mind the likes of Prime Minister Helen Clark and National Party leader Don Brash.

- Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch airport staff must be armed according to the Civil Aviation Act.

- Members of the Armed Offenders Squad (AOS).

- The elite Special Tactics Group, whose tasks include checking for bombs at VIP conferences.

Last month, the fatal shooting by police of Iraqi refugee Haidar Ebbadi Mahdi, who had stabbed his wife and an officer, highlighted the fact that police have guns at hand.

Police have killed or wounded nine people since 1998, a small number compared with other countries, according to police national manager of operations Superintendent Tony McLeod.

He said New Zealand police were generally unarmed, but it was necessary for a variety of groups to be armed all the time.

He was not sure if the public knew how many police were armed: "We've never claimed to not have access to firearms. It's not kept secret." But police headquarters in Wellington and a spokesman for Helen Clark's office, Mike Munro, refused to say whether diplomatic protection police who guarded Clark were armed.

Police headquarters would say only that diplomatic protection police were armed while on duty.

The Star-Times understands those who guard the likes of the prime minister and Brash are in fact always armed. The number of diplomatic protection staff guarding politicians depends on what they are doing and the level of risk associated with who they are with. But Clark always has at least one officer close by.

A senior Auckland policeman, who did not want to be named, said he and his frontline colleagues regularly wore a gun in a holster when going to violent incidents, but made sure it was hidden under a jersey.

Another said frontline senior officers in Auckland had about two rifles and six Glock pistols locked in the boots of police cars. He said some intelligence staff were also armed while on assignments and "virtually any police officer can draw a firearm if they think the circumstances are justified".

McLeod said New Zealand police had 1771 Glock pistols and 883 bolt-action Remington rifles.

The Glock pistols were appropriate for personal protection and destroying animals, while the rifle was more accurate at hitting targets from a longer range.

According to police general instructions, officers must sign out weapons, noting details such as the time, date and reason for use. The return of a weapon must also be noted, and whether it had been presented must be relayed to the appropriate district manager. If shots were fired, a report must be filed.

The instructions note: "The NZ police is generally an unarmed service. It is recognised, however, that firearms need to be available quickly, easily and safely. Minimum visibility should be applied at all times."

Police could wear guns on hip or shoulder holsters at their own discretion, but should if possible notify a senior officer.

Officers who might be required to be armed were not allowed to drink alcohol within a reasonable time before starting duty.

The Crimes Act allows police to use a firearm in some circumstances, including to defend themselves or others, while arresting threatening offenders, if the arrest cannot be effected in a less violent manner, and while trying to stop someone fleeing from custody.

Any officer could be armed if authorised by a police boss, but no authorisation was required if officers found themselves in an emergency.

McLeod said firearms were not used lightly and police were reluctant to resort to that level of force.

"We should always use the lowest level of force to contain a situation," he said, adding police had other weapons like pepper spray.

Ash Edwards, a former Auckland AOS commander of AOS for 15 years who has left the force, has never pulled the trigger on anyone, but knew several officers who had killed people in the line of duty. These officers knew they had to shoot or other lives would have been at risk.

"But they've had to live with it for the rest of their lives," he said.

Edwards said potential AOS officers were asked in the selection process `if you had to shoot someone could you?'.

Edwards believes the public was not naive. They knew many officers were armed.

Fatal police shootings

August 2004: Haidar Ebbadi Mahdi, 37, an Iraqi immigrant, was shot and killed after he stabbed his wife and a police officer in Auckland.

April 2000: Steven Wallace, 23, was shot and killed in Waitara, Taranaki, after rampaging through the town and advancing on police while armed with a softball bat.

July 1999: Eddie Leo, 31, was shot and killed by police after refusing to put down a fake gun he was pointing at them in Helensville, Auckland.

September 1996: Terrence Thompson, 43, was shot and killed in Hawke's Bay by police after a 65-day manhunt following the shooting of Hastings constable Glenn McGibbon.

September 1996: James Paul Raharuhi, 46, was shot and killed by police in Greenland, Auckland, after firing shots at a service station where his former wife worked.

November 1995: Psychiatric outpatient Barry Radcliffe, 37, was fatally shot by police outside a Whangarei sports shop after firing shots from a gun stolen from the store.

September 1995: Schizophrenic Eric Gellatly, 35, was fatally shot after a 21-hour siege at an Invercagill gun store when he ran out into the street firing shots.

July 1993: Larry Hammond died after being shot three times by police after holding hostage police and members of the public with a loaded crossbow in the Morrinsville police station.

November 1990: David Malcolm Gray was shot and killed by the armed offenders squad after a 24 hour massacre during which he killed 13 people in Aramoana, Otago.

October 1990: Paul Stowers was shot and killed by police in Khyber Pass, Auckland, after he threatened an officer with a shotgun during a routine stop.

Rachel Grunwell
Statistics compiled by Lesley Longstaff

The shooting of Steven Wallace index page

-Source

As inflationary prices jump, clearly seen in food and petrol, drugs take over, some idiots in South Auckland thinking this is L.A, we have now come to the time when New Zealand is making a scene publicly to militarize the police. Like the U.S model, CCTV being in more locations, some may think trigger happy L.A.P.D, however to note also that in the U.S standard uniforms and issue got replaced by S.W.A.T/special forces like armour wearing, automatic and taser firearms in the police force, much of what's happening here and in the U.K. This has all been proven to be related to lied upon terrorist attacks, well we know years later what the Bush War on Terror was, Oil, and now thats effecting the world whilst using it as an excuse to make a Reich of the U.S.A.

Google 'Militarization of our police force' and you will see many many many others feel this way. 550,000 results, but to note this is only by titled articles matching, not the actual content within articles. This is around 1/8th of our population in N.Z according to the last consensus if true.

Here in New Zealand, a local paper has a story on this, only covering the stories they recently covered that 'sell' to make there business profits with the vested interests of others, as we know it happens in the corporate 4th branch mainstream media. Hence why I have written some facts on this all.

Now the excuses have changed, most will remember the youth were blamed for alot of problems, before the government gave us the excuses of terrorism (in which has never been proved to most the pointed persons and countries), global warming, consumer bad credit (in which the bank will loan an 18 year old studying on an income of $150 a week a $5000 credit card easy), and we can clearly see the recent shootings and violence were caused by those primarily under 25 years old, however to note the government and those in the media and others who have power of influence are wrong and just don't care when it comes down to it.

I have included a video that shows a view that could be shared by others...

Above written by Blog Admin.

*** The local paper reports below ***

Police want armed patrols on Auckland's streets 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

"Armed response vehicles" would be manned by firearms specialists and provide a quick response to call-outs like last week's shooting of Manurewa liquor store owner Navtej Singh.

The Weekend Herald can reveal a proposal for a six-month trial of the patrols is being recommended by a top-level police review.

The proposal will be put to Police Commissioner Howard Broad for consideration by August and, if approved, the patrols could begin in March.

Police say the trial would probably involve four cars, each manned by a pair of officers and carrying Bushmaster rifles and Glock 9mm pistols.

It would create an official policy of routinely arming police officers, eroding the force's 122-year-history of being "generally unarmed".

The Weekend Herald has also learned police want the patrols to carry a medium-range "less-lethal" option such as the newly developed Taser Xrep - which fires an incapacitating Taser projectile from a 12-gauge shotgun.

Police acting national operations manager Superintendent John Rivers said the armed patrol proposal was part of a review that began this year.

The review's aim was "to further develop police effectiveness when responding to calls for service where weapons are involved" and Mr Rivers said the patrols would augment existing police procedure.

"If armed intervention is required they [the patrols] are placed to readily provide it," he said.

Mr Rivers said there was a "strong and obvious connection" with Mr Singh's murder. Police have been criticised for rigidly following procedure in waiting 24 minutes from the 111 call until entering the shop where he lay dying.

Mr Rivers acknowledged the patrols would be controversial, but said the "cornerstone" police response remained "cordon, contain and negotiate".

Mr Rivers said the patrols were based on the armed response vehicles used by police forces in the United Kingdom for 20 years.

The trial would not cover the entire city, and while Mr Rivers did not know exactly where it would cover, he said it would be "high-risk" areas.

The patrols would probably use standard police cars, and Mr Rivers said the officers would not necessarily carry the weapons, but would have them in the car.

The patrols would operate at peak times.

Mr Rivers said the review team was "very, very keen" to test mid-range lethal weaponry to supplement the close-range options of the baton, pepper spray and Taser.

The review was keeping a watching brief on the Taser Xrep, which uses Taser stun technology in a shotgun-type cartridge and can hit targets 20m away.

The projectile contains an electronic battery-powered "engine" and does not require the wires used in standard-issue Tasers.

Mr Rivers said another option was bean bag guns, which fired "socks" filled with shot.

He said some British police officers now working in Auckland had been involved with armed response vehicles un the UK and could be used for training or staffing the unit here.

Mr Rivers said the review team was awaiting the internal report on Mr Singh's murder with interest.

He denied that police were being opportunistic by revealing the plans for armed patrols while there was so much public concern and criticism of the police response to Mr Singh's killing, saying all critical incidents provided "impetus".

Armed patrols were in the news in 1993 when Rotorua Detective Inspector John Dewar - convicted last year of covering up Louise Nicholas' police sex complaints - sent armed offenders squad members through the city to curb armed robberies.

The move was stopped after the Council for Civil Liberties sent a letter of protest to the Police Commissioner.

Campaign against the Taser spokeswoman and defence lawyer Marie Dyhrberg said she agreed with the proposals for the armed patrols and Taser Xrep "in principle".

She said the armed patrols meant officers with the right training and psychological approach would handle situations involving firearms, "and if someone has to shoot you want the right person".

Taser Xrep could also be beneficial if it allowed police to stand back further and negotiate, but police would have to be open with any trial results so the community could be assured it was safe.

- Source

Few Labour voters may realise the full extent of what the Clark government has in mind - or has allowed to get out of hand - with its rewrite of the 1987 Immigration Act. To date, the parties on the centre right (National, Act, United Future) have also shown little interest in the Immigration Bill's sweeping extensions of state power, while the anti-immigrant crew within New Zealand First must be thinking all their Christmasses have come at once.

Under this legislation, it is proposed that immigration officials should be given powers of entry to business premises and private homes and enhanced powers of search, seizure and detention without warrant. The CEOs of any government department or agency will be able to decree information as classified, and thus put it beyond direct access or query by the people most affected by it. Access even to a summary of what is being alleged will be conditional, and at the state's discretion.

Even if allowed, a summary of allegations can be made as skeletal and un-informative as the state decides. Firstly, any such summary will be only of the allegations arising from the information, and need not summarise the information itself. Secondly, clause 216 of the Bill says the summary will not be required to list any of the documents, or detail any of their contents or contain anything that might identify the source of any of the allegations. Good luck with mounting a viable defence - against whatever it is the state thinks you have done - under such conditions.

There's more. The Bill empowers Immigration officials to compel people to provide biometric information without the Bill containing firm guidelines or procedures for the use, retention, security, accuracy, storage and sharing of such data. There is no overt statement about the relation of the new Bill to the Privacy Act, or support for its protections on fair handling of personal information and bodily integity. There is only the kind of vague mention found at clause 92, which opens up more problems than it resolves - by saying ( incorrectly) that the Privacy Act gives immigration officers power to ' further deal' with the personal data they have collected and retained.

Clause 92 of the Bill also says that New Zealand citizens returning home can be compelled to have photographs taken of them - "subject to regulations" made under the Bill - in order to prove they are who their passports say they are. A close reading of the biometric information definition clause (at p 20 of the Bill) indicates these mandatory photographs need not be restricted to facial photographs - a concern that was raised by some of those who made submissions on the Bill. So much for bodily integrity.

Read the full story here
http://election08.scoop.co.nz/labour%e2%80%99s-human-rights-nightmare-the-new-immigration-bill/

The Bill itself can be found on the parliament website re http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/4E13B59A-65F4-4072-94AD-5C74ECCC922A/83882/DBHOH_BILL_8048_528999.pdf