|
|
Post by Fogg on Dec 4, 2021 18:14:53 GMT 12
Hang-on, hang-on…. let’s just pause here to clarify and reflect...
Q1: You’re throwing up a load of new(?) stop & search type rules that appear to have been recently added to the existing Covid legislation. And these have been very recently rushed through parliament without much debate. Is all that correct?
Q2: Are you also saying that this new legislation has got a special extra condition attached to it meaning that unlike ordinary legislation it is not only the police who can enforce it but iwi? In other words this is new legislation that one ethnic section of the NZ population can enforce against the other specifically because of their ethnicity?
I cannot believe that the answers to my two Qs are “Yes” so before I react any further I’ll await confirmation from the brains-trust here?
I sincerely hope that I have fundamentally misheard / misunderstood you guys (it’s been a long week with much lost sleep)!
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Dec 4, 2021 18:20:32 GMT 12
Hang-on, hang-on…. let’s just pause here to clarify and reflect... Q1: You’re throwing up a load of new(?) stop & search type rules that appear to have been recently added to the existing Covid legislation. And these have been very recently rushed through parliament without much debate. Is all that correct? Q2: Are you also saying that this new legislation has got a special extra condition attached to it meaning that unlike ordinary legislation it is not only the police who can enforce it but iwi? In other words this is new legislation that one ethnic section of the NZ population can enforce against the other specifically because of their ethnicity? I cannot believe that the answers to my two Qs are “Yes” so before I react any further I’ll await confirmation from the brains-trust here? I sincerely hope that I have fundamentally misheard / misunderstood you guys (it’s been a long week with much lost sleep)! 1) Yes, and 2) Yes, Iwi represnetatives, in addition to Maori Wardens, Pacifika Wardens and 'Community Patrollers' |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Dec 4, 2021 18:23:25 GMT 12
Almost:
18Authorised enforcement persons
(1) The Director-General may authorise a suitably qualified and trained person who is employed or engaged by the Crown or a Crown entity (if specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act 2004), or a class of suitably qualified and trained persons who are employed or engaged by the Crown or a Crown entity (if specified in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Crown Entities Act 2004), to carry out any functions and powers of an enforcement officer under this Act.
(2) An authorisation under subsection (1) must—
(a) be in writing; and
(b)specify—
(i) the authorised enforcement person or the class of persons; and
(ii) the functions and powers that may be carried out by the authorised enforcement person or class of persons; and
(iii) the term of the authorisation.
Not sure if any authorisations have been made, but it is clear that if someone stops you you are entitled to see their authorisation, if they don't have one they are acting illegally, even if a constable is present.
An enforcement officer is entitled to do all sorts of things too, including issue infringement notices, the acts not very big, worth a read.
Could get interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Dec 4, 2021 18:35:44 GMT 12
Ok I’d like to hear Luxon or Seymour seek clarification on these points via the media and see what we hear back?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Dec 4, 2021 19:14:44 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Dec 4, 2021 19:20:31 GMT 12
Ok, so where are we getting the Iwi idea from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Dec 4, 2021 19:43:04 GMT 12
Its in section 22, sub section 7 worries me a bit, not sure if it is intended to override the need for the Director General to specifically authorise a class or reiterates the need for the class to be authorised.
If someone stops you at a checkpoint i would ask them to show you their Enforcement officer Authorisation.
If they don't and constable in attendance then pops up you need to answer his questions, but you can then complain that an someone else pulled you over and wouldn't show you their authorisation as required by the act. The constable can't authorise them.
I would recommend recording the interaction, the police are usually pretty well briefed on this stuff, hard to believe they will get it wrong.
If you are directed to pull over by someone unauthorised to do so.... up to you I guess how far you want to take it.
22 Power to close roads and public places and stop vehicles
(1)Subsection (2) applies if a COVID-19 order provides for the total or partial prohibition or restriction of public access, with or without vehicles, to any road or public place within an area specified in the order for the purpose of this section.
(2)For the purpose of enforcing those measures contained in the order, a constable or an enforcement officer acting under the supervision of the constable may totally or partially prohibit or restrict public access, with or without vehicles, to any road or public place in that area.
(3)For the purpose of a COVID-19 order that provides for restriction of movement, a constable may stop a vehicle.
(3A)For the purpose of enforcing or monitoring compliance with a COVID-19 order that restricts movement by persons with or without vehicles, a constable may stop persons and vehicles at any road block or checkpoint established for that purpose.
(4)Sections 128 and 129 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 (duty to remain stopped and to provide information), with any necessary modifications, apply to the powers conferred by subsection (3) and apply in addition to the requirement to provide evidence of identity in section 19.
(5)An enforcement officer may also stop persons and vehicles for the purpose stated in subsection (3A) if acting under the supervision of a constable.
(6)For the purpose of subsection (5) only, enforcement officer means a person authorised in accordance with section 18 who is—
(a)a member of the Armed Forces (as defined in section 2(1) of the Defence Act 1990):
(b)any person whom the Commissioner recognises as being—
(i)a Māori warden; or
(ii)a nominated representative of an iwi organisation; or
(iii)a Pasifika warden; or
(iv)a community patroller.
(7)Section 18 applies with any necessary modifications for the purpose of subsection (6).
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Dec 4, 2021 20:24:33 GMT 12
It’s right at the end of your extract Para 22 subsection 6(b) parts (i) to (iv) - which basically says Māori, Iwi or Pacifika representatives can be nominated to close roads under Poluce supervision.
So yes, this does appear to be a specific ethnic group that is being legally entitled to affect traffic management on public roads supported by the police - to protect their community.
I’m just trying to imagine what would be the public reaction if this was the other way around. Imagine for example if the Govt enacted rules that entitled only white NZers to set up road blocks to control the traffic in / out of Herne Bay - allegedly to protect their community. 😳
Am I really reading this right? I feel like I must be missing something… surely this isn’t really happening in NZ???
|
|
|
|
Post by eri on Dec 5, 2021 7:15:05 GMT 12
labour's maori caucus has a lot of power and they use it Asked by host Jack Tame what he thought about Willie Jackson securing more than a billion dollars in the Budget for Maori initiatives, Henare replied: “At the end of the day, what this says is about [Maori] being around the table — in numbers — so that you can say to your mates: ‘Hey, take it or leave it. We can always leave.’”
Left-wing blogger Martyn Bradbury echoed these sentiments: “It didn’t matter that the Māori Party sat at John Key’s table when John Key owned the table. [But] the Māori Labour caucus reminds Jacinda she owns the table BECAUSE of them.”
The audaciousness of the Three Waters programme makes the heft of the Maori caucus’ power and of its Cabinet allies obvious. One of its principal purposes — and which forms an immoveable bottom line — is to hand 50:50 co-governance to iwi. And, no doubt, the right to extract royalties as well.
He Puapua itself states increased Māori rangatiratanga will require financing and that, “There are multiple streams from which financial contributions might be sourced, including, for example, levies on resource use where Māori have a strong claim to ownership, such as water.”
Asked about Three Waters, Maori Party co-leader Rawiri Waititi made it clear that water is “a taonga that belongs to us”. He has also said that a “Tiriti-centric Aotearoa” would not be “a democracy, because… democracy is majority rules”.
democracyproject.nz/2021/11/01/graham-adams-jacinda-ardern-and-the-ghost-of-david-lange/ |
|
dp
Full Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by dp on Dec 5, 2021 7:43:14 GMT 12
to protect their community. Of course ensuring their community got vaccinated would never work....... |
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Dec 5, 2021 8:16:04 GMT 12
to protect their community. Of course ensuring their community got vaccinated would never work....... Why hasn’t somebody who understands the cultural communication barriers better than me still not worked out a simple way to say: “The best way to protect your community is via vaccinations not roadblocks.” OR “Get a jab and safely make easy money out of stupid ‘more-money-than-sense’ Auckland visitors!” |
|
|
|
Post by eri on Dec 5, 2021 21:45:43 GMT 12
it's not about covid
it's not about health
it's about 'control'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2021 14:50:34 GMT 12
I agree with CZ. Shane Reti spoke very well at the presser. Besides, who would want an actual Doctor to lead the country through a pandemic? Not wanting to sound condescending (but will anyway), being Maori helps tick a minority box. But I liked his no nonsense style of speaking. No waffle. No glib catch phrases, no hand wringing (literally). A strong contrast to the waffle and twaddlebollocks from Ahdern. Luxon makes my skin crawl - his is one of those religious conservative types. He'll be banning abortions and re-imposing prohibition given half the chance. Bridges? would be like ground hog day. Why would you re-elect someone that has already been dumped? Mark Mitchell only got nominated for Rodney after he called on his mate Cam Slater to do a hit job on the person that won the nomination. Mitchell was sloppy seconds. And yes, he has done nothing, said nothing, and got his photo taken lots. I rather they did nothing than do what donkey chops and Offshore are doing. NZs becoming a expensive, woke, minority driven, shit hole! |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Dec 6, 2021 20:12:33 GMT 12
but it is clear that if someone stops you you are entitled to see their authorisation, if they don't have one they are acting illegally, Same applies to YNZ and Inspectors. Under the Act blaa blaa 444 that YNZ have their powers designated to them, you can ask them or an inspector, and it is noted in the act you must do it nicely, to show you their Warrant issued to them by the Minister or Director. If they don't produce it they have no power.
I asked a couple and they all had not the faintest idea the law requires them to carry or produce. I very much doubt YNA knows either.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Aug 5, 2022 9:22:47 GMT 12
well Luxon has been in the job 8+ months now and he continues to underwhelm. He got off to a good start with his opening speech and his initiative with having a car ready to take him from parliament to his apartment with the fat female journalists chasing him was hilarious. But after that he really has not got too many runs on the board in spite of a myriad of opportunities. He seems to want too much to be part of the "club" with Stalinda and her mates rather than being a true opposition leader. He really lost me with his attitude to the Wellington protestors just meekly following Mallard's instructions. Slater on him and National this morning thebfd.co.nz/2022/08/05/more-flip-flops-than-an-aussie-beach/I was in Australia when John Hewson lost the "unloseable election" to the detestable PJ Keating in 1992, there is the potential for the same to happen here and there are not too many standout alternatives in National, once again as Slater wrote yesterday thebfd.co.nz/2022/08/04/the-peter-principle-a-nz-case-study/ |
|
