Freedom New Zealand

It seems John Key's clear points are of privatizing and letting foreign business and corporate power control everything much like a third world country, example in another case is ACC. However everyone thinks he's doing a good job by acting quick and promptly etc etc, well he's acting promptly only to answer from what his consultant and script writers tell him. Only actions he's gone for is to delay Sect 92A of the Copyright Law and push forward with a Business Elite like Super Council for Auckland's region, see the past post from 09/2008 here, the first three paragraphs from that post read;

Auckland City officers are floating the idea of replacing elected councillors with businessmen to run the city's parks, swimming pools, libraries and zoo along commercial lines.

In a surprise move, officers have expanded the proposal for a "holding company" to manage the council's interests in Auckland Airport and Westhaven Marina to include a vast range of community services.

Officers acknowledge the plan would be a sensitive issue with the public and create a perception of maximising profits and a step towards privatisation.

Solomon Star News
Friday, 20 February 2009

HISTORY is littered with commentaries by business, world leaders and academics on how the banking system is set up and what it was designed to do and has been doing ever since its creation.

It is fair to say that the masses may never know the real business of foreign banking. And yet, it is on the back of the masses that banks carry their successes in terms of profitability, year after year after year.

They make their money in a number of ways, including but not limited to charging phenomenal interest rates. In return they pay hardly anything to depositors.

Their practices border on daylight robbery – practices sanctioned by competent authorities and the legal system in every country.

Most, if not all, qualify for insolvency if they were to uphold the same rules imposed on ordinary folks.
But we will never know why they are allowed to continue in business.

And the reason we will never know about what banks do with your money [I don’t have any] is clear. No one in his right mind broadcasts the secrets of his success.

But history has been kind, leaving important indicators on the secrecy under which banks operate.
Many have left the door to banks ajar for those who care to peep in. People like Henry Ford, the man whose family name is synonymous with the United States auto industry.

Or Reginald McKenna, who was Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chairman of the Board of the Midland Bank between 1915 – 1916.

Henry Ford, for example, once said of banks in the United States:
“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning”.

Mr. McKenna said:
“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money … Those who create and issue money and credit direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people”.

As indicated in this column last week, these are some of the issues I wish to discuss this week in the hope of enlightening us to the reality.

For example, given the practices by the banks, what do we as a nation need to do?
More work and less talking. Any meaningful intervention in this murky area, however, has to be spearheaded by Government and its monetary policy.

It is in this light that one, Kelvyn Alp, a New Zealander, has provided the Government a “must read” document titled, Solomon Islands Economic Reform – Monetary System and Taxation.

Copies were widely distributed to Members of Parliament, particularly Government Ministers and Members of Government Caucus last year. It was provided as a Parliamentary Discussion Document.
The 36-page document was dated 8th November 2008.

It is a ‘must read’ if one were to understand the banking system here, the monetary system and taxation and what is urgently required to deal with these problematic areas.

In the preamble, Alp says the document “is an urgent reminder of the need to look beyond the established and ultimately flawed economic theories that have caused such devastation to nations the world over”.

“All too often there are those that are ever ready to give advice to developing nations like Solomon Islands, while at the same time, concealing the true nature and intent of that advice. Change will never come from systems that have been proven to fail time and time again.

“In this document, I shall deal with the truth and facts only,” he said.

Alp argued that many have studied and received degrees for subjects covered in the document, “yet have never comprehended the underlying mechanics of those lessons and how they relate to real-world economies”.
He urged readers to be willing to put the interests of the people and nation above their own.

“This must be done despite the constant pressure being applied by some to retain the status-quo and further have you implement disastrous policies that will place you, your family and the nation, in a continuous position of servitude,” the former military man turned businessman said.

An avid reader of a wide range of subjects, I must say I am fascinated by the clarity and indeed the message being conveyed in this document.

The more I read this revolutionary document, the more I want to be out there doing something. The feeling I have experienced will only be felt if one’s passionate about what needs to be done and fast.

For example, how do you feel about phrases such as “today’s money [is] created by private interests for private profit”.

Alp quoted Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a banker who in 1790 said and I quote: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws”.

Many will probably recall reading somewhere that Rothschild was one of the founding fathers of what we know today as America’s Federal Reserve, the equivalent of our Central Bank.

The US Federal Reserve was never a Government institution. It’s an invention by businessmen who want to control the world’s wealth. And they do today. Only six per cent of the world’s population control today’s wealth.

Commercial banking, including those in Solomon Islands are merely an extension of the greed that has now thrown the global financial economy into tailspin.

Next week, I’ll take you through the banking system, the monetary reform and the many faces of money that banks “sell” us – faces fully disguised in deception and falsehood.


By ALFRED SASAKO

- Source

So the N.Z elections are over, John Key smiles in victory that the National obtained most of the party vote.

I said prior to Helen Clark's step down speech she would step down, just take a look back at Brash, Shipley etc, they normally will do on a loss.

I don't like either Helen or John, and yes i'm glad Winston 'dodgy dealing' Peters is gone.

I hope this serves as a reminder that John Key used to be in the financial sector, so the banks have it in there best interest to have a face like him at forefront of N.Z.

Also to remember, lets see if tax cuts come, faster broadband with fibre-optic to the home ever happens and that I.T guru Maurice Williamson was once sympathetic to Telecom being regulated into LLU.

Ultimately let's see if privatization occurs, because in third world countries whenever they have privatized there energy, telecomm's if they exist, water and so on, the foreign corporations who bid for it, say the usual crap of more competition is better for business, bearing in mind better for there business profits, not a care given to the people they should serve, as they have nothing in common with that people and it's not there homeland either, which is why as such foreign police are often recruited. Less a conscious to get what work is ordered done to the oversight of upper management, in the case of John one could say the banks and co.

Let us learn from the mistakes of others marked in history whether published or forgotten, as in the next four years, things are going to get worse.

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.

Winston Peters last night admitted he received a donation from billionaire expatriate Owen Glenn - after repeatedly denying the story for a week.

The New Zealand First leader said he found out about the $100,000 donation only at 5pm yesterday when his lawyer, Brian Henry, told him.

The money was used to help pay the legal bills that followed an election petition Mr Peters launched after the 2005 election.

Since last Saturday, when the Weekend Herald published an email in which the Mr Glenn said he had given money to NZ First, Mr Peters has angrily denied the allegation.

He called for the resignation of Herald editor Tim Murphy and political editor Audrey Young.

"Here's the deal," Mr Peters said. "The editor of the New Zealand Herald and the Herald journalist Audrey Young can see NZ First's accounts and talk to our independent auditors, but when they find nothing I want them to apologise to the public and resign. We have to have some accountability right now. It's a case of put up or shut up."

The story was a "scandalous piece of journalism, indolence and sloth".

Last night, Mr Peters said Mr Henry had "broken policy" to tell him the source of contributions to his legal fees.

"Until today I've been unaware of the source of all donations for legal expenses and I have cause to be very grateful to Mr Glenn for his very generous contribution."

Mr Peters said that since 1991 he had been involved in 14 legal actions, partly funded through donations, and Mr Henry had "a firm policy" of not disclosing the source of donations.

"Mr Henry decided, due to publicity over the past weekend in respect to Mr Glenn, that he should break this policy and inform me that Mr Glenn had donated in 2006 a sum in the order of $100,000 towards the legal costs of the Tauranga electoral petition."

Mr Glenn did not make the donation to NZ First, he said.

This week, Mr Peters gave Helen Clark an assurance the magnate had not donated any money to the party.

Last night, he said: "I told the Prime Minister what I then knew, and today I have told her what I have learnt."

The row over the donation broke out in February, after Mr Glenn said he had given money to parties other than Labour. There was intense speculation NZ First was one of them.

The Foreign Minister produced a large "NO" sign at a press conference soon after questions of a donation to his party arose. The issue was reignited when the Herald published the email from Mr Glenn to his spokesman in New Zealand, Steve Fisher.

It said: "Steve - are you saying I should deny giving a donation to NZ First?? When I did??"

In reply, Mr Fisher told Mr Glenn not to contradict Mr Peters.

Last night, Mr Henry said: "It wasn't until the media started going crazy during this week, and in particular saying Mr Glenn sent the email, that I decided it was time to tell him [Mr Peters]."

- 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.

Well Helen Clarke buys the rail asset back and names it KiwiRail, headed by ex-Nat Jim Bloger, who also happens to run most of our infrastructure like NZ Post and KiwiBank. Even so Kiwibank and the Reserve Bank are controlled by the international bankers like most Western and European based governments. Therefore the governments national debt by borrowing from the Reserve Bank, the upper echelon creates out of thin air money and makes interest on high repayments on money that never existed in the first place, as such credit.

Furthermore there are plans by some in Parliament to buy and control a nationalisation of public transport, so bus companies and the like. In turn real control to the upper grasp of the pyramid. Another plan is to build prison systems close or interconnecting to rail lines, thus the plan with either party (as they're both puppets in the equation) wants to build more prisons, give police greater powers and guns. This in turn gets arms and private rail contractors rich and the result of a more evident police state.

As for National the conservative facing puppet party, my review and Scoop.co.nz found the same info recently.

Australian insurance company investors are being advised they would reap large profits if the ACC scheme was privatised, but it would come at significant cost to New Zealanders, says ACC Minister Maryan Street.

"The confidential Merrill Lynch briefing to Australian investors, made public today, says National has given insurers a strong message it would privatise the $10.3 billion public asset if ever elected - although the party consistently refuses to provide any policy details to the New Zealand public.

John Key used to work for Merrill Lynch, as we have seen he can not speak well, mostly his speechs and refusal on policy is pre-written. A recent example; "I do condone that, oh no I don't condone that."

"The briefing says privatisation of ACC could be a "very positive development" for Australian insurers which should be able to "capture" what will become the New Zealand injury insurance market.

Brenda Pilott is a Public Service Association National Secretary, she says...

"National needs to tell ACC staff if it is putting their jobs on the line by privatising ACC."

"They also need to tell the rest of New Zealand if they are going to increase the cost of accident compensation, and line the pockets of foreign-owned companies, by privatising our accident compensation."

John Key's interests are those in the ploy of big business particularly banking and finance. Just as Helen Clark's is a capitalist socialism, like a enslaved soviet union pyramid scheme runs by freemasons and there like, classism divided, as race is not a factor as per the multiculurism structure of N.Z, the E.F.B proves pretty much dissent will be silenced or must be registered.

Everything must be registered or on record; cars, persons, assets, cash, your political affiliations, your children, marriage, death, other forms of finance and commerce, so it can be tracked, taxed and tallied. Sure some might say so they can better serve us, sure they are servants to the people, but do they represent us in the so called representative democracy, looks at our needs, i don't think they have done much to improve anything but the interests of the rich and powerful and elite. No liberty i can see clearly, just a decrease of it overall.

If only more people could see what the Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand had said prior to the oil, food and credit crisis came into public view, thus which all runs on money, thus the DDP monetary policy is of major-fold significance. Oilcrash.com said much the same also. People need to wake up the truth is closer now, but behind a web of deep lies and corruption.

The Government is gearing up to host two VIPs with United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice due to visit New Zealand this month, and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd due to arrive next month.

The working date for Dr Rice's visit is July 26, which will be after the Asean Regional Forum in Singapore.

The working date of Mr Rudd's visit is August 18, which would mean a stop in New Zealand on his way to the Pacific Islands Forum in Niue.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters will be attending the ARF in Singapore and has developed a strong working relationship with Dr Rice, especially on the issue of North Korea's denuclearisation.

Relations between the United States and New Zealand have improved markedly in the past few years.

Mr Rudd has visited New Zealand before but not since becoming Prime Minister last November. Mr Rudd is expected to hold bilateral talks in Auckland.

Reported By Audrey Young

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.

Councillors last night shot down a proposal that would have banned two Maori flags from flying on the Manukau City Council's buildings.

In a heated debate, some accused councillor Jami-Lee Ross from Howick of racism for asking that tino rangatiratanga and kingitanga (Maori King Movement) flags never be flown on municipal buildings.

However, he wanted a provision for any other flag in "extraordinary circumstances".

On the face of it that seemed like "discrimination," those opposed to Mr Ross's position said.

The council was discussing a staff report on a flag policy that was requested by the council's Treaty of Waitangi committee.

It follows Transit's refusal to fly the tino rangatiratanga flag from the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and makes the council - which has a 15 per cent Maori population - the biggest in the country to have debated the issue.

Mr Ross said the city and national ensigns were "perfectly appropriate," and the three months allocated to draft a report on the issue would end up as a waste of ratepayers' money.

"I don't believe the council needs a flag policy," he said.

"The council should focus its attention on its scheduled policy programme and deal with real issues such as crime and infrastructure" - issues which he said his constituents were more worried about.

He said if Maori expected their flags flown, each of Manukau's 185 ethnic communities would want to do the same thing.

"We need to keep it very simple and just fly the New Zealand flag because it represents everyone in Manukau City."

Mr Ross was backed by councillors Daniel Newman and Bob Wichman, who argued that every dollar counted when the council was trying to control spiralling rates.

The defeat was a crushing 13 to 4 against Mr Ross's motion.

Treaty committee chairman Alf Filipaina told Mr Ross it was strange that he supported any other flag except for "those Maori-sounding ones".

Mayor Len Brown voted against Mr Ross, saying Manukau City had worked hard on its relationship with Maori and the council should respect the committee's decisions.

Read my comments on this post here.


A new bill would allow courts to order compulsory DNA testing of children for paternity checks, regardless of consent.

United Future MP Judy Turner's private member's bill provides for the Family Court to order cheek swabs for DNA testing of children whose paternity is in dispute.

The measures in the Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill also include warrants allowing the possibly forcible taking of the child to get the sample if a parent resists the order.

At present, courts can only recommend parentage tests and parental consent is required for children under the age of 16. The Law Commission recommended court orders for DNA samples in its 2005 report on Legal Parenthood, saying parents should not be able to unreasonably thwart such requests.

Ms Turner said it would cut down on costly, lengthy court challenges for those trying to prove parenthood and stop mothers effectively thwarting such requests by refusing to give consent. Penalties of up to three months' prison or $2500 fines could be handed down for resisting the orders.

Mr Barker another involved in this bill, said Ms Turner's bill involved issues including the use of force, and common law currently did not allow a sample or blood tissue to be taken without consent.

"The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives people common law rights about personal liberty, trespass, and about privacy. Those are rights that children have as well as adults and legislation about paternity testing needs to find the appropriate balance between the interests of mothers, fathers and children."

* International research indicates the wrong biological father is listed on about 10 per cent of children's birth certificates - up to 5000 children in New Zealand every year.

* Under Judy Turner's bill the Family Court would be able to order swabs to test children.

* In cases of lack of compliance, courts could issue a warrant to allow for enforcement, using reasonable force if necessary.

* Penalties for resisting would be up to 3 months' jail or a $2500 fine.

- Full Story on NZ Herald here

National Party leader John Key said today he would put a cap on the number of bureaucrats, but stopped short of saying he would cut the current totals.

He claimed the fastest growing sector in the economy since 2000 had been government administration and said New Zealand doesn't need any more bureaucrats.

Mr Key, giving a speech to the National Press Club in Wellington today, said Health Ministry staff have grown by 51 per cent compared to a 28 per cent growth in doctors and nurses employed by district health boards.

"Core bureaucrat" numbers have grown 37 per cent, compared to 10 per cent growth in state sector staff providing frontline services and 22 per cent growth in employment in the economy as a whole, he said.

"My commitment to New Zealanders is this - in the first term of a National government, we will not grow the size of the core bureaucracy.

"Enough is enough. We are going to make do with the resource we have, and work to get more value of it.

"It is time to focus public spending on frontline services that make a real difference to people's lives, rather than paper-shuffling and report-writing that does not."

He said that under a National government the number of doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, and police would grow.

"I firmly believe we have enough bureaucrats to do the job already and that the priority for resources in the state sector is the delivery of frontline services."

Keeping a lid on the size of the bureaucracy would, over time, restore a "sensible balance" between the number of state employees giving advice to the government, and the number delivering frontline services, he said.

- NZPA

The NZ Herald online (not that I like the mainstream media) is running an interesting thing here...

The Government's accounts have dropped into an operating deficit for the first time in almost 15 years. The Treasury has revealed the Crown's operating balance for the seven month period to January 31 was a deficit of $394 million -as much as $4.2 billion away from the forecast surplus of $3.8 billion. What is to blame for the disappearing Government surplus? Click here to see more.

Two petitions with a total of more than 600,000 signatures opposing the anti-smacking law have arrived at Parliament.

At first glance, both appear to have the signatures of 10 per cent of voters, making it likely each will lead to a Citizens Initiated Referendum.

These would probably be held at the time of this year's general election.

Backers want the smacking of children to be legalised again, and for the Government to give urgent priority to addressing child abuse and family violence. Petition organiser, Larry Baldock of the Kiwi Party, says it is regrettable they had to go this far.

He says Sue Bradford knows that her anti-smacking bill never had the support of ordinary people.

The two petitions are now subject to a certification process, checking signatories to ensure the 10 per cent hurdle has been reached. There is an opportunity for the submitters to go back to the public if they fall short, allowing a further two months to get the numbers up.

Once an approved petition has been filed, it has to be presented to the House of Representatives, after which the Governor-General has a month to set a date for the referendum, or to specify that the referendum will be conducted by postal voting.

The law says the referendum must be held within 12 months of the petition being presented to the House, unless 75 per cent of MPs agree to a different date.

Citizens Initiated Referenda are not binding on the Government.