To: sosmp_consultation@dia.govt.nz
Department of Internal Affairs
WELLINGTON
31 July 2023
Department of Internal Affairs
RE: ‘Safer Online Services and Media Platforms Discussion Document’.
The NZ Outdoors and Freedom Party is a registered political party that is campaigning for
the 2023 election under the Freedoms NZ umbrella. Freedoms NZ is another registered
political party.
NZ Outdoors and Freedom Party strongly opposes all proposals to restrict freedom of
speech, including on social media platforms (apart from very narrow categories of speech
that are already legitimately restricted, such as inciting hatred and defamation), for the
reasons summarised below.
● Freedom of speech and expression are fundamental to a democratic society and are
protected by the NZ Bill of Rights and by the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
● These freedoms belong to the people of New Zealand, and are outside the legitimate
jurisdiction of the NZ government. The freedom of speech, opinion, expression and
conscience are not something that government has any right to assert control over or
interfere with The illegality of state interference or purported interference in such
matters has been well established for many decades including by the International
covenant on civil and Political Rights.
● The NZ government appears to have forgotten that its only legitimate role is to
represent the people. Elected and paid representatives owe fiduciary duties to the
people. The ongoing harassment and bullying of those who question government
narrative is anti-science, anti-humanity and anti democratic.
● Attempts by government to assert and promote an official narrative are inconsistent
with the rights and expectations of New Zealanders and with a democratic society.
● State endorsed interference with individual freedoms, with political parties, and state
funded gaslighting, harassment and discrimination of New Zealanders based on
medical choices or any other minority view shows just how far the NZ government
has departed from expectations and best practices of a democratic society. Not only
it this unjustified government overreach, but it is also arrogant to assume the
government or its chosen appointees can decide what is truth and what is not,
especially in emerging issues where science and knowledge are constantly evolving
and where models and assumptions must be tested. History has already shown that
the government narrative was seriously flawed, and this attempting to close down
free speech was an abuse of power that caused significant harm to many by falsely
alleging that important ideas that challenged the government narrative was
“misinformation.” This shows arrogance and ignorance of law, science and humanity,
any a serious lack of respect for human diversity and the nature of human
conscience.
● The criminal offences of sedition were removed from the Crimes Act on the advice of
the NZ Law Commission in 2007 NZLC Report 96. The Forward to the Law
Commission Report provides an excellent introduction by former Prime Minister and
constitutional lawyer Sir Geoffrey Palmer explaining the overriding importance of
freedom of speech in a free and democratic society.
“In its review of seditious offences, the Law Commission has concluded that the
width of the offences means they are an unjustifiable breach of the right of freedom
of expression. Furthermore, the linguistic over-inclusiveness of sedition means the
offences lack clarity. They have the potential for misuse. Indeed, they have been
inappropriately used in New Zealand in times of political unrest and perceived threats
to established authority. They have been used to fetter vehement and unpopular
political speech. The time has come to remove the seditious offences from the New
Zealand statute book. We recommend repeal of the seditious offences. To the extent
that inciting offences of public disorder and revolt against lawful authority should be
made criminal, these are already proscribed in other offences contained in the
Crimes Act 1961. In a free and democratic society, defaming the government is the
right of every citizen. In times beset with threats of terrorism we should not close the
open society. To do so would only encourage its enemies. In New Zealand, free
speech and public debate must be “uninhibited, robust and wide open”, and it may
include “vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on
government and public officials”, as Justice Brennan of the United States Supreme
Court once put it.”
These principles apply to the current attempt by government to arbitrarily restrict free
speech.
● State funding and control of mainstream media has removed an important
constitutional check and balance on the abuse of power, and instead made it into
another source of state promoted propaganda. A large proportion of the public have
responded by abandoning state funded media as a source of trusted news and other
information. This means that social media has taken on a significant importance to
provide alternative perspectives.
● It is essential that New Zealanders are able to exchange ideas, opinions, feelings,
perspectives and act on their conscience to question and challenge the exercise of
power, including assumptions and modelling that has let us all down so badly over
the last few years, without fear of harassment, bullying, discrimination or other
retribution. Many of these questions were highlighted in OIA and other information
exchanges but never made it to the public domain due to censorship1.
A specific case study- The Covid response
● Many New Zealanders no longer trust government as a direct consequence of
government abuse, lies and the manipulation of information during the Covid
response. That narrative is still being pushed by government and state funded
mainstream media despite considerable evidence to show that the assumptions and
modelling are unreliable and the assertions are misleading and deceptive and the
experimental vaccine and rollout can cause death and serious harm. Compelling
information is available from Medsafe to verify this (www.medsafe.govt.nz). The
public is still waiting for an explanation and apology for the propaganda and harm
caused to physical and mental health and to our economy.
● Claims made and information shared under the unnamed “Unite Against Covid” logo
and promoted as a single source of truth was directly contradictory to information
published by the NZ regulator Medsafe and by the manufacturer of the Pfizer
vaccine.
● For example claims the Pfizer vaccine was “safe and effective” and would protect
whanau were misleading and deceptive, as the Pfizer vaccine only ever had
conditional provisional consent and was only approved as a prescription only
medicine due to lack of information about its safety. There was never clear evidence
about what was meant by claims it was “effective” or that it prevented infection,
transmission, hospitalisation, death or reinfection. It was quickly clear that the jab did
not stimulate herd immunity. Further, the jab was contraindicated for the frailest
members of society who are the very ones at risk from respiratory infections.
● It appears that the Department of PM and Cabinet and the Boarder Control
Committee and others in government, and the well paid “spin” teams who pushed the
jab and the government narrative had never read the Medsafe advice, Coroners
reports international advice about the effective early treatment protocols or the
research published by experts who found critiqued the modelling and assumptions
and who found effective solutions using proven protocols.
● Information about deaths caused by the Pfizer vaccine was improperly withheld from
the public for many months. In some cases this was deliberate, for example the
significant delay before the public were warned about the death of the Auckland
woman from vaccine induced myocarditis in July 2021 and the warning on the draft
scientific report for the New England Medical Journal by NZ authors including Dr
Michale Tetley “Do not release under the OIA”.
● But for discussion on social media it is likely that even more New Zealanders would
have died or suffered serious injury.
1 Refer OIA Sue Grey to Minister and CEO of Worksafe 28 April 2021 – copy attached
● We strongly oppose state interference and censorship of social media and refer to
the US Senate Inquiry
● The antidote to this is to facilitate public discussion AND to introduce far more
accountability for abuse of power by government including strengthening access to
public information, removing exemptions, giving far more resources into the
Ombudsman office, and setting up a department of corruption to actively investigate
collusion by government against the public of New Zealand.
Other steps to enhance democracy and promote accountability
● We do encourage a requirement that groups such as FACT Aotearoa and Debunking
Conspiracies who regularly post defamatory information and hate speech on
Facebook be required to provide the names of the people responsible for their pages
so appropriate action can be taken directly with them.
● We acknowledge that social media is not a pleasant place at times and we
encourage the government to facilitate other ways for political parties to share
information particularly ahead of each election, for example by making the Parliament
TV channel available to all registered political parties on an equal basis to share their
policies to better facilitate a free and fair election2.
Outcome sought
No convincing case for these reforms has been made. A rights based approach should
be adopted and the proposals should be abandoned.
Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc, RSHDipPHI
Co-Leader NZ Outdoors and Freedoms Party
Annexure Referred to in Footnote 1: OIA to Worksafe
——— Forwarded message ———
From: Sue Grey suegreylawyer@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021, 10:39
Subject: URGENT HEALTH AND SAFETY QUESTIONS RE PFIZER VACCINE
To: michael.wood@parliament.govt.nz, phil.parkes@worksafe.govt.nz
Dear Minister and Phil
HEALTH AND SAFETY OBLIGATIONS OF EMPLOYERS
I act for a number of employees who are concerned about pressure and in some cases
bullying by their employers to receive the novel Pfizer RNA vaccine.
2 NZ Outdoors and Freedom Party v Electoral Commission [2023] NZHC 1823
The Pfizer vaccine has only provisional consent status in New Zealand under s23(1) of the
Medicines Act. This means that it can lawfully be used only for the treatment of a limited
number of patients. Urgent proceedings are currently before the High Court seeking
clarification of the lawfulness of the Gazette notice, the vaccination rollout plan and the
limited number of patients that it was approved for.
I am keen to obtain as much information as possible to assist my clients to make an informed
decision as to whether or not they wish to receive the Covid vaccine.
This information is also important so work colleagues can have important conversations with
their colleagues and people they care for, to ensure informed consent before receiving the
vaccine.
Some of the outstanding questions that need URGENT answers are:
- Why was the Cominarty Vaccine given provisional consent in New Zealand
in February 2023 when Covid was eliminated from New Zealand? - Who are the limited number of patients it has been authorised for
pursuant to s23(1) of the Medicines Act and where is this documented and
explained to the public? - What is the status of the 58 outstanding questions Medsafe asked Pfizer
about the safety, effectiveness and quality of production, and why is this
information not readily available?
https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/status-of-applications.asp - Why is this Vaccine is being used on healthy members of the public before
the 58 conditions have been addressed, or the clinical trials have been
completed, especially bearing in mind that most New Zealanders are not at
risk from Covid? - Which of the risks identified in this 20 January 2021 “MARC” report to
Medsafe have been addressed, and which are still outstanding.
https://medsafe.govt.nz/profs/adverse/MinutesOoS-20-jan-2021.htm - Please can you provide any research you are aware of to show that this
Vaccine is safe for pregnant women and does not trigger miscarriages or blood
clots. - Please also advise and provide supporting evidence to show which
medications, vaccines and combinations of medications and vaccines the
Pfizer Vaccine has been tested with, and the results and analysis of this
testing. - I have read research that indicates that many of the Covid vaccines and the
S Protein in these vaccines affects human blood clotting. Please can you
provide research to show that S Protein manufactured by the Pfizer Vaccine
will not cause any changes to recipients’ blood clotting or any related risks,
especially bearing in mind the relationship between SProtein and blood clots
and the uncertainty of how the mRNA for the SProtein will react in epithelial
and other cells .
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.21.423721v1 - I understand from government advice that the Pfizer Vaccine does not
prevent infection or transmission. Please can you explain why therefore it is
not a decision for each individual as to whether they wish to receive it or not,
depending on their own health, genetics and ethical beliefs. - Please can you explain the consequences for employment/training if
someone decides for medical or ethical grounds not have the experimental
Pfizer Vaccine at this time, and who will decide this. - Are there any medical or ethical reasons that an employer should accept o
give effect to human rights, Bill of Rights and other rights of individuals? - If any adverse effects are reported after receipt of this experimental
vaccine at the request of any employer, please confirm it will be treated as a
workplace injury, and full ACC cover will be given. - Please advise where employers and employees can readily access the
answers to these questions and other information so an employers’
contractual and health and safety obligations to their staff (including
protection of their physical and mental wellbeing) can be fully complied with
Thank you and kind regards
Sue Grey LLB(Hons), BSc(Biochemistry and Microbiology), RSHDipPHI
