A GAGGLE of freedom parties failed to make a dent in the New Zealand election after the National Party and Act NZ appeared to gain a slim majority of 61 seats in the 120 seats in the Kiwi Parliament. The Ardern-Hipkins Labor Party only managed to gain only 26.9% of the vote.
The populist NZ First party may not be able to exercise the influence it had hoped for by giving National and Act the extra seats they would have required for a majority. But this may still be the case if the remaining half million “special votes” yet to be counted swing against National-Act.
NZ First managed to gain 6.46% of the vote, giving them 8 seats, just three behind Act with 11 seats and six behind the Greens with 14 seats. But not even a coalition of four freedom parties run by the activist church leader Brian Tamaki could gain half a per cent of the vote. They only gained 7031 votes or 0.31% of the total vote. Next best was NewZeal with 12,701 votes for 0.56%.
NZ Loyal, led by high profile journalist Liz Gunn, did better, gaining 1.15% of the vote, but miles short of the 1 million votes she reckoned they would win. The highest vote for a small pro-freedom party was 46,667 (2.07%) for TOP (The Opportunities Party),
The new Kiwi Prime Minister will be the corporate kingpin Christopher Luxon, the former CEO of Air New Zealand, who, like Scott Morrison, is said to be an evangelical Christian. Luxon is unlikely to be any sort of thorn in the side of the globalists, although he favours socially conservative policies like boot camps for deliquent offenders and is not keen on Maori co-governance.
The Maori Party stole a lot of votes of Labor, gaining 58,949 for 2.61% and four seats. The latest results can be seen in full at the NZ Herald online site.
The Nationals in Australia are not known for standing their ground. Are the NZ mob any different?
Just say no to communism
Hi Joey thankyou.
Have reposted.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/amplified-pain-syndrome-elevenyearold-boys-horror-diagnosis-after-covid-vaccine/news-story/80f668b508f96d891e5ea5159e3a0450
Hi Joey thank you.
I have reposted.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/amplified-pain-syndrome-elevenyearold-boys-horror-diagnosis-after-covid-vaccine/news-story/80f668b508f96d891e5ea5159e3a0450
@Blisskitt, link doesn’t work.
The last number is a ‘0’, not 3.
Meanwhile I tried to post this days ago. Hidden.Y4https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/amplified-pain-syndrome-elevenyearold-boys-horror-diagnosis-after-covid-vaccine/news-story/80f668b508f96d891e5ea5159e3a045
3
Thanks Alison for info. I try to wake people up everyday re: cash.. All too convenient with watches etc. Many preoccupied and and doing the best they can, also sold by no need to go to a bank. So also lazy. No cash no privacy, pretty much end of story. No cash no real economy is how I see it.
Banks from just general knowledge and heresay are grossly distrusted yet we are conditioned to trust them. I would trust my neighbour above a bank.
Here is another work around I did on an article posted freely on Apple News from the Australian.
Headline: “NZ’s new PM Christopher Luxon won’t rule out referendum on Treaty of Waitangi”
“New Zealand’s incoming prime minister has not ruled out a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, despite warnings it would cause “civil disobedience” and “violence”.
Christopher Luxon told NZ media on Monday he felt a referendum would be divisive but he would “would “get through those issues with the respective parties.”
The ACT party, which is set to go into a coalition government with National under new PM Christopher Luxon, wants to redefine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and hold a referendum on enshrining them into legislation. The proposal, which was supported by 60 per cent of voters in a pre-election poll, is a “bottom line” for ACT leader David Seymour.
But minor party politicians strongly oppose a referendum, with Green Party leader James Shaw making a comparison with the defeat of the Indigenous voice to parliament.
“I think you have just seen the equivalent of that in Australia, where you have a majority that has voted to continue to override the indigenous rights there, and I think you could see something very similar here,” Mr Shaw told the Stuff website.
“If that happens, you will see wide scale social disruption – it could lead to violence,” he said.
John Tamihere, president of the radical Te Pati Māori, said that to “unravel” and “question” the Treaty would create “some of the largest civil disobedience and unrest in the country.”
The Treaty principles have become a polarising issue in NZ, particularly the principle of partnership, which has become a central tenet of co-governance arrangements which give Maori and non-Maori equal seats around the table in local and national decisions.
Mr Seymour and other opponents argue the principle of partnership was never in the original Treaty but was drawn up by members of the judiciary and academia in the mid 1980s, and has led to discrimination against non-Maori members of the NZ population.
Mr Luxon said during the election campaign that a referendum would be unhelpful and divisive.
However as negotiations with Mr Seymour begin, Mr Luxon said: “I’m just not going to play the rule-in, rule-out game.”
He said he still felt “strongly” that a referendum would be divisive, but added: “We’ll get our way through those issues with the respective parties.”
Mr Seymour described Mr Tamihere’s warnings of civil disobedience as “unhinged” and asked Mr Shaw to retract his claim of potential violence.
He has told NZ media a referendum would be a part of coalition negotiations with National.
“The Treaty today is mainly understood through its principles but those principles have never been discussed, debated or settled by the people of New Zealand,” he said.
Mr Seymour told the Australian the principles should be redefined to protect the rights of the non-Maori population.
“You can be asked to consult on something just because you’re Maori. It means special rights for Maori because they are indigenous. That’s created an enormous amount of division,” he said.”
Link is here otherwise search headline on Australian. For reference purposes only: https://apple.news/AXTAVqq2cQ8WLohVdZfsRmQ
Sorry folks to digress here. Citizens Party is a small party keeping its foot on the pedal to retain cash. Here’s their latest Media Release of 13 October 2023.
For the next 20 days Australians have an opportunity to submit to Treasury’s consultation on a new bill to regulate digital payments in the payments system.
This is an opportunity to send a very strong message to the government: whatever you do to regulate new digital payments, you must also protect the only payment system that is 100 per cent certain, reliable, and private—cash!
Treasury’s consultation on the exposure draft legislation for proposed reforms to the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 runs until 1 November 2023.
The consultation page explains:
“Following consultation in June 2023, the government is updating the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998 to ensure regulators and government can address new risks related to payments as the provision of payments evolves and increases in complexity.”
*As yet the Australian Citizens Party has no opinion on the specific proposed reforms, but urges Australians to seize this opportunity to send a message to the government to protect cash.*
A loud message is important because while the government repeatedly states it has no plans to get rid of cash, it is allowing the banks to effectively force Australians to go cashless by making it harder and harder to access and use cash.
The banks:
1) impose arbitrary limits on cash withdrawals at branches that have nothing to do with money-laundering regulator AUSTRAC’s $10,000 disclosure threshold;
2) interrogate anyone who wants to withdraw their own money—which the banks claim is to protect customers from scams, but it’s also convenient for the banks and they take it way too far;
3) close branches and rip out ATMs to make it much harder for consumers and small businesses to source cash and bank their takings, and forces consumers to use private ATMs which charge high fees;
4) incentivise businesses to go cashless, to reduce the options for consumers to spend cash.
If the government doesn’t intervene to stop the banks from going down this path, Australians can look forward to a future in which any natural disaster or power failure will bring ALL commerce to a halt—possibly for days—until the infrastructure is fixed.
Families will not be able to buy food, water, fuel or any other necessities.
All the starving, desperate people will huddle around and say, “Remember when we had cash and we could still buy stuff when the power failed?”
All so technology-bedazzled bank executives can shift their banking business model to 100 per cent digital, enabling the banks to extract more profits from their customers by trapping them inside the bank, tracking and tracing every transaction and monetising the data, and taking a cut of every single transaction.
To achieve their digital dystopia, the banks and the Australian Banking Association (ABA) are using dodgy claims and data to paint a false picture of Australian commerce.
One claim relates to cheque use, which the government is phasing out by 2030 based on statistics from Anna Bligh’s ABA that cheque use has plummeted, from 1 per cent of all transactions in 2007, to 0.2 per cent in 2022.
Yet the truth is that the total number of transactions has soared, so while the percentage has fallen, the absolute number of cheques written has held steady since 2007—close to 2 million per month.
For the people who write those 2 million cheques every month, it is the most convenient and reliable way they have to transact—the government should not be forcing them into digital payments to benefit the banks.
Make a submission!
All concerned Australians should send an email or write a physical letter to the consultation, calling for:
1) Protection of cash, including access and use;
2) Consideration of legislation to require businesses to accept cash payments;
3) No forced phase-out of cheques by 2030.
To make a submission, click here [treasury.gov.au/consultations/c2023-452114] for the Treasury consultation website with details of the legislation and how to submit.
Alternatively, simply email the consultation at this address:
paymentsconsultation@treasury.gov.au or,
Write a physical letter to this address:
Sally Etherington
Director
Payments Strategy and Policy Unit Financial System Division
Treasury
Langton Cres
Parkes ACT 2600
The submissions deadline is 1 November. Don’t be intimidated by the word “submission”—it is simply a physical or email letter stating your concerns. Make the points above and any others you wish to make. And please share this widely, especially with elderly Australians who are the ones being left most behind, and strongly urge them to write a letter submission too.
citizensparty.org.au/media-releases/send-treasury-consultation-loud-message-protect-cash-payments-system
“an evangelical Christian who will betray the electorate”
What might it take? 30 pieces of silver (or a little more these days).
Luxon is an evangelical Christian who will betray the electorate. But, having said that, let us see who is right and who is wrong.
And before the evangelical Christians swing into their usual bigoted attack mode, I support the words of Jesus. It’s Christians I can’t stand.
zzz3856
I …just hope Luxon is a moral, honest and principled man and not a WEF puppet.
Sorry, but they ALL are. All established or ‘major’ political parties are WEF puppets and tow the WEF / UN party line.
There’s no victory to see here: they’re all tarred with the same anti-freedom, humanity loathing brush
NONE of them are on our side.
NONE of them have our best interests at heart.
ALL of them are subservient to a foreign unelected and mostly unknown globalist oligarchy. The United Nations and World Economic Forum. NOT ‘their own citizens.
People need to wake up and forget the whole FAKE construct of democracy and voting for a new slave master every 3 or 4 years. It’s a scam designed by the globalists to allow our corrupt and treasonous, lying politicians to CONTROL us.
Above all: STOP COMPLYING with your own servitude.
When you vote for any of these puppets, regardless of what political club they’re members of, that’s what you’re really doing. By participating in their (S)election charades, you are recognising, thus validating their otherwise false authority.
Everybody wants to be fuhrer.
That is not quite true about Hipkins. What he actually said was they were not forced to have the vaccine but he left out “Mandates” altogether. Why? Because you could not take the Jab but your workplace would be fined heavily if they did not require you have it. I worked for a school so when contacted by my manager i simply said “you know where I stand on this issue so I am happy to be put off”
So this is what “Chippy” was alluding to in terms of “not forced” Of course we were forced he is using a sleight of hand comment just to gas light the voters in to voting for him. Didn’t work obviously.
The freedom parties wiped themselves out… by being too many. If they had united under one cause, just ONE cause at the beginning, you’d see them all in parliament but nooooooo…… they all had their own egos to worry about and have let down any real chance of change…. knew this was going to happen as soon as I saw all these little parties forming and the one I am most dissed with? NZ Loyal for leaving it all so late to register and then did nothing but take votes off of Winston, so now even he may be powerless too…. thanks Liz, you did your job well….
Anyone who claims that if something is mandated then it is optional is correct.
People had a choice, but if they were ignorant of how “law” operates and what a mandate is, then their ignorance precluded them from exercising that choice.
And given that those mandators relied on the ignorance of the mandatories and did nothing to ‘educate’ them, then they practiced a form of culpable malfeasance.
In case being jabbed becomes ‘mandated’ in the future, people are advised to look up the meaning of the term in a Law Dictionary.
A powerful tactic to a mandate is to use a ‘Conditional Acceptance’ as the formal response coupled with an Affidavit, generally in the form of a negative averment.
And for those that look up the definition of ‘mandate’, the qualifications sought using a Conditional Acceptance become self-evident.
And yes it works a treat.
Two people I personally know used this response and during the whole fraudemic were directed to stay home on full pay, and at the end of the mandate were invited back into the workplace totally unjabbed.
Their employers dared not to sack them.
Glad the Kiwis got rid of anything to do with Ardern… I just hope Luxon is a moral, honest and principled man and not a WEF puppet. All people of any country want is a leader that cares about them and acts in their best interests and not those of foreign powers.
Time will tell.
HIpkins is a smoking turd. He tried to run the Mandela Effect on the Kiwis telling them that the gov’t never mandated the covid vaxx, it was their ‘choice’ to get vaxxed etc.