All constitutional arrangements have both written and unwritten provisions that underpin their operation.
These reflect the duty of care owed to the population, to promote progress, protect them from harm, and refrain from interfering with or removing their basic human rights.
Unfortunately we have come to realise that governments make promises they can’t keep and fail in many of their undertakings. We also know that many of these promises are made in the absence of good faith—they contain assurances that are most probably unrealisable or even patently false.
In many ways we are all playing a political game. The electorate knows what is going on, but at every election we hope that newly elected voices will finally act in good faith, only to have our hopes dashed yet again.
It is quite a different matter when a government deliberately enforces policies that result in direct harm to sections of the population without any provision to escape their effect. It is at this point that the government may be said to be acting outside of constitutional protections.
The casualties of our pandemic response
In the very early months of the pandemic and the mRNA vaccination programme, the government might argue defensively that they were, to a certain extent, unsure of the potential effectiveness of Covid inoculation and hopeful about the ultimate long term outcome. This is no longer the case.
It is now clear from the government’s own official data that there is no statistical benefit of reduced Covid infection, hospitalisation, and death rates among the vaccinated population, but this has been hidden from the public.
More worryingly, it is also clear that Covid vaccination is associated with an unprecedented rate of adverse effects including serious illness and death, more that 40 and possibly as high as 80 times that of traditional vaccines.
We have previously discussed a pattern of excess all-cause mortality in 2021 closely related to Covid vaccination. We estimated that there were over 2000 excess deaths during the first eight months of the vaccine rollout.
From the start there has been a worry that the long term effects of Covid mRNA vaccination are unknown, due to the limitations, brevity, and inconsistent findings of the Pfizer vaccine trials.
2022 New Zealand all cause mortality figures are now available
These show that the pattern of excess deaths is continuing. Moreover the magnitude of the effect is similar to 2021 and is greatly in excess of the known official mortality from Covid itself.
Using the Human Mortality Database (a University of California / Max Planck collaboration), we have compared the all-cause, all-age New Zealand mortality for the first 17 weeks of 2022 to the long term average for 2010-19.
These figures show that the excess deaths for the first 4 months of 2022 exceeded 2,200, whereas the total confirmed deaths which list Covid as the underlying cause of death, as recently announced by the government, is less than 450 for the same period. This is in line with a 2020 article in the British Medical Journal. It suggests that less than 1/3 of excess deaths are due to Covid. So what are they due to?
The important point is that there are many reasons to suppose that mRNA vaccination is contributing to the elevated death rate. Learned journals are publishing new articles raising significant questions at an unprecedented rate. For example, an Israeli study has shown that high levels of cardiac emergency call outs are related to prior Covid vaccination, but not to prior Covid infection (for more information see this summary).
Even an editorial in the prestigious and influential New England Journal of Medicine has warned of potential harmful impacts of mRNA Covid vaccination on the immune system such as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE). Excess all cause deaths could be related to vaccine induced immune deficiency. The New Zealand public remains in complete ignorance of this and other scientific warnings by virtue of the influence the government wields over the NZ mainstream media who have chosen to report on the government’s Covid reponse uncritically.
The unwritten constitution of New Zealand includes the Bill of Rights
In New Zealand, in addition to the principles of Common Law originally derived from our association with the UK, we have a Bill of Rights. Its provisions include:
- Right not to be deprived of life or subjected to cruel treatment
- Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
- Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment
- Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief
- Freedom of peaceful assembly, association, and movement
- Right to justice, liberty, and freedom from discrimination
Unfortunately the NZ Bill of Rights contains poorly worded limitations which were never meant to override its provisions but which have been misused by the government and misinterpreted by the courts. Whilst Section 5 entitled Justified limitations provides assurance saying:
“The rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Section 4 Other Enactments Not Affected says:
“No court shall…decline to apply any provision of a [subsequent] enactment [of the Government]—by reason only that the provision is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.”
In other words the legislation wording is insufficiently accurate to the extent that the government believes it can simply bypass the provisions of the Bill of Rights by passing new legislation, as it has done during the pandemic. This is self-evidently a distortion of the intent of the Bill of Rights.
The courts feel they must defer to the government. Moreover the process of judicial review available in New Zealand to challenge the application of government policy in the courts does not allow for cross examination of witnesses. As a result, courts remain essentially tied to government advice.
The government is mandating risk in defiance of the Bill of Rights
Despite the growing evidence of harm, the government has continued to endorse Covid vaccination mandates in one form or another upon at least 20% of the population. It has continued to fund saturation advertising assuring the public of the safety and efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, contrary to fact. It has set up funding mechanisms to reward mainstream media publications which endorse mRNA vaccination. Despite evidence of increased cardiac risk, including long term risk, it has failed to warn the public of risks, quite the reverse.
In doing so, it has stepped beyond the constitutional protections of the NZ Bill of Rights. It is forcing the public to take on added medical risk including the risk of death. At the same time it is concealing the risks from the public. It is also suppressing and criminalising attempts to inform the public and the government of risks. Including the deregistration of doctors wishing to offer the public meaningful informed consent and the deletion of social media posts reporting vaccine-induced harm. This has engendered a constitutional crisis unprecedented in New Zealand’s history.
This has occurred partly as a result of a close alliance between the government and medical professionals who are ideologically committed to the safety and efficacy of any and every vaccination irrespective of new evidence. The government has also committed itself to an unquestioning level of trust in Pfizer, a company with a history of proven malpractice.
Medical professionals are not well qualified to govern nations, nor are pharmaceutical companies. The medical protections and rights of medical choice written into the Bill of Rights are there for very good historical reasons.
A level of fear has been promoted and created through manipulation and censorship of information. This has become associated with an irrational condemnation of those exercising their constitutional rights to refuse medical interventions, which are guaranteed by the NZ Bill of Rights.
Constitutional reform—the way ahead
The distortion and concealment of information is so great that it may be said to be not only criminal but also in direct violation of the unwritten Common Law constitution of New Zealand. As a result, during the pandemic, an asymmetry has arisen between the limits of government power and the rights of the population. The government is determined to extend its power beyond previously recognised boundaries and thereby infringe on the prior rights of the people.
New Zealand is a relatively young and immature democracy with few historical moments of crisis. In 2003 Helen Clark abolished the right of appeal to the UK Privy Council and vested its functions with the NZ Supreme Court. In New Zealand, the courts do not act contrary to legislation, even if the provisions of Common Law are violated. It is Parliament that is supreme, its enactments not being susceptible to annulment by any court. Thus under the present vaguely defined constitutional provisions, the resolution of a constitutional crisis is a process poorly understood.
Resolution of crises, such as the pandemic now presents, will define New Zealand going into the future. Will we take truth as paramount, or will we consider truth to be a maleable tool of government? Historically we have despised those nations who distort the information available to their populations. We have participated in conflicts where we thought that truth and the protection of populations from violence was at stake.
The management of the pandemic has merged suspect modern medical orthodoxy, commercial medical imperatives, and the power of parliament to the extent that human rights, the rules of evidence, and personal freedoms have been bent to suit the aspirations of politicians and foreign institutions. The fact that no party has raised its voice in significant opposition is indicative of the extent of the constitutional crisis.
This government has eighteen months to run, we can only imagine the havoc that it is capable of creating during that period. New Zealand urgently needs a constitutional reform party to address the urgent issues that have arisen.
In the meantime, the provisions of the Bill of Rights should be reinstated without limitations. This is not a matter of new legislation, it is a matter of scientific fact that the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been bypassed illegally and the courts should recognise this and act accordingly.
This is a matter that cannot be bypassed, it must be faced and resolved.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a food testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID). Website: HatchardReport.com.
Guy is the author of ‘Your DNA Diet: Leveraging the Power of Consciousness To Heal Ourselves and Our World. An Ayurvedic Blueprint For Health and Wellness’.
Thanks for your well written article. This govt seems to have entered a state of tyranny: their might is their right. They have dropped the duty of care, imposed on all govts, for opportunism. The question of the PM’s loyalties also needs answers–has she put her Schwab training and connections before her duty to NZ?
The English Common Law is more robust than many realise. Coupled with it is a backstop even less known: the Courts in their Equitable jurisdiction. Effectively, the Courts assumes the power of the Sovererign to see that a fair and just solution emerges. NZ Courts recognise this and I have seen in it operation personally in the Small Claims Court as it has wide application. In short Justice over rules tyranny.
A further issue is the misuse of the super Parliamentary majority to ignore the sovereignty of Parliament as the Parliament as a whole. Tax may be levied but its expenditure is under the sovereignty of Parliament. The right to tax and spend is not without restraints. Ignoring that is another manifestation of tyranny.
I second any call for a Party to give priority to constitutional matters.
One of the glaring omission in this article is discussion of the Treaty of Waitangi. If NZ government signs the WHO treaty, Maori will be entitled to seek remedy with the Waitangi Tribunal. They wont be able to sell the rights of Maori to globalists without the Waitangi Tribunal clearing it. Issues of soveriegnity has to be cleared. For example, NZ will not be able to sell say Chatham Island to Chinese or Americans.
Not all tribes signed the treaty; and there are issues on that front too. Kia Ora
It is not just the Elected Government but the civil civil service that is treating the population like cattle shame on them
I hate to be the one to break it to you – we essentially are living under a fascist dictatorship. The exercise of tyrannical power is going to increase exponentially moving forward. Few people have the capacity to grasp what’s actually taking place. I’ll give you a hint. “The Great Reset.” The systematic demolition of our old world order to make way for a New World Order. The establishment of a planetary dictatorship. “The end justifies the means.” – Niccolo Machiavelli
The Courts are following the “letter of the law”. To date nobody has brought before the courts the “compelling evidence” Cooke J asked for in FOUR AVIATION SECURITY SERVICE EMPLOYEES v MINISTER OF COVID-19 RESPONSE First Respondent ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF HEALTH Second Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL Third Respondent 21 and 22 October 2021. [78] I next address what I apprehend to be the key question in this case: whether the Order is unlawful because it introduces measures that are not a demonstrably justified limit on the freedom to refuse medical treatment.
[79] As explained earlier, this is a question that the Court must itself ask. It is not a matter of reviewing a decision made under statutory powers, here by the Minister. It is whether the measure itself is compliant with the Bill of Rights. If it is not, it is unlawful.
Cooke J states in [97] that in order for the court to answer the question; “has demonstrated justification been made”, compelling evidence of factors that show demonstrated justification has not been made need to be put before the court.
[97] In their submissions the applicants contended that the adverse impacts of COVID-19 have been overstated. Ms Grey argued that positive cases from COVID- 19 arise from positive tests rather than from significant symptoms, that the death rate and transmissibility of Delta was similar to influenza, that reported COVID-19 deaths were mainly deaths with COVID-19 not from COVID-19, that early treatment protocols had been shown to be highly effective at keeping people out of hospital, and that alternative therapeutic measures were effective at treating it. I did not find persuasive support for these propositions in the applicants’ evidence, and they were directly contradicted by the expert evidence filed by the respondents. To demonstrate to the Court that New Zealand’s public health response has been based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of COVID-19, and that the Director- General of Health, the Ministry of Health Chief Science Advisor, and MedSafe’s Group Leader, as well as the other experts who support their views, have all got this wrong would require the applicants to put forward compelling evidence.
In accordance with the determination of Cooke J that the Court must itself ask whether the order itself is compliant with the Bill of Rights the following factors require the attention of the court to demonstrate that the correct determination that demonstrated justification has been lawfully made to allow for the limiting of or removal of the rights enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by Covid-19 acts, regulations and orders:
1. The Court shall read the Pfizer Vaccine Manufacture and Supply Contract and assess whether the terms and conditions of the contract, imposed on the purchaser do not force requirements on the purchaser that are in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Sec 5.
2. Demonstrated justification, in accordance with Sec 5 requires empirical scientific proof of the existence of a SARS-CoV-2 virus that was isolated from a sample extracted from a “Covid-19 / Delta positive case in the community” and identified by being an exact match with a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 viruses isolated from United States patient zero who was diagnosed with 2019-nCoV, now known as SARS-CoV-2, on 20th January 2020. Failure to furnish empirical scientific proof of the existence of a SARS-CoV-2 virus that was isolated from a sample extracted from a “Covid-19 / Delta positive case in the community constitutes the compelling evidence Cooper J required in FOUR AVIATION SECURITY SERVICE EMPLOYEES v MINISTER OF COVID-19 RESPONSE First Respondent ASSOCIATE MINISTER OF HEALTH Second Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL Third Respondent para [97].
3. Demonstrated justification, in accordance with Sec 5 requires empirical scientific proof that a patient who has returned a “positive” RT-PCR test result is a patient with a SARS-CoV-2 virus infection that has manifested as “Covid-19 / Delta and the supplied proof will remove all possibility that the “positive” RT-PCR test result is an example of one of the US Center for Disease Control’s stated limitations of the RT-PCR test contained in the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel [07/20/2021) as follows:
1) Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms
2) This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
Failure to eliminate all possibilities that the “positive” RT-PCR test result is an example of the US Center for Disease Control’s stated limitations of the RT-PCR test constitutes the compelling evidence required by Cooper J
Sec 5: Justified limitations
Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
“Demonstrate”: Proof which excludes all possibility of error. Bouviers Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
“Justified”: The act by which a party accused shows and maintains a good and legal reason in court, why he did the thing he is called upon to answer. Bouviers Revised Sixth Edition, 1856.
When corruption exists everywhere coupled with a general lack of integrity, justice is rare. Deception is the modus operandi. A sign of a civilization in a state of collapse.
Well summarised
It’s only 100 to 200 excess deaths a week!
I’m sure that big uptick around week 7/8 had nothing to do with February big boost
Surprised to see a poorly prsented data and interpreation from Guy.
Excess deaths in the first 17 weeks of this year can be interpreted in many ways.
1. Omicron is a new flu-like cause, which has increased the mortality rate. It is “flu-like” because NZ has had up to 1500 deaths because of flu in the past.
2. One can argue that the excess deaths is low because of mass jabbing. We dont know what the mortality will be in the absence of covid jabs. We have to wait for the winter time data when the jab effect is almost negligible.
3. The mortality rate last year was lower than usual (excess deaths was negative). So pro-vaxers will claim that jabbing worked to stop excess mortality.
4. The graph is poorly drawn. The Y-axis must start at zero instead of 540. This type of graph is generally regarded as misleading.
The main problem in using the summary statistics such as the excess mortality is that the confounding variables are not adjusted for. There is never going to be any counterfactual data. No covid jabs for 2010-19 but there are jabs for 2021-22. So comparing summary data is like comparing apples with organges in the absence of adjustment for confounding variables.
I am not for mass vaccination, and I do not believe there is a strong cost-benefit for mass jabbing. The arguments presented here on excess deaths do not stack up. More cost-benefit analysis, and adjustment for confounding variables should be done.
“2. One can argue that the excess deaths is low because of mass jabbing. We don’t know what the mortality will be in the absence of covid jabs.”
Easy for the health department to find this statistic if they choose to look. Look at the excess mortality rate for the unvaccinated adult population.
Mortality data on “With Covid & Jabbed”, “Due to Covid & Jabbed”, “With Covid & Unjabbed” and “Due to Covid & Unjabbed” were cooked up and released last year to show jabbing was effective. The problem is that there were many confounding variables such as lockdown, 30 day limit for covid death classification etc. Lockdowns did reduce the flu spread and so the excess deaths were neagtive which allowed the covid and jab related death counts to be suppressed. Given that all the efficacy of jabs and boosters are almost negligible, this winter will show the real picture. I expect the covid mortality rate is no different from flu mortality rate. What is important is to note how many die to due heart attacks and other heart related problems. An increase is likley for 2022.
Using the numbers off that chart as best as I could, works out deaths are 23% higher than normal for ytd
There is no mandate for any childhood vaccines, all of which are for diseases that are more serious than covid but covid is the hill that the government must die on or be victorious, go figure.