Royal Commission of Inquiry: Add your Signature now!

 (Updated 15/3/24)

Sign now - you have only until the 24th of March!

Please sign now by clicking on the image

Two more things:

1. We encourage you to send the link to this article to as many people as you can, urging them to put their name to the People's Terms, and ask them to circulate this message to all of their contacts - it's "pass the parcel time"! https://www.garymoller.com/post/royal-commission-of-inquiry-have-your-say

2. Please make your own submission and send it to: https://haveyoursay.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz/public-input/englishtor (I've listed several "Key Points" and lots of background information below to make it easy for you, but make it your own!). https://nzdsos.com/2024/03/15/nz-covid-inquiry-deadline-a-simplified-guide-to-submit-your-feedback/

Warning, warning warning!

The clock is ticking! Don't miss the deadline - sign the People's Terms right now, and make your submission by 24th March. Together, we can fight for the truth.

Yours in solidarity,

Gary

---

How to write your own submission about the Inquiry's Terms of Reference

Here are essential articles to help you:

https://flagnfix.substack.com/p/nz-firstthank-you 

https://flagnfix.substack.com/p/the-covid-inquiry-terms-of-reference

Introduction

The coalition government is expanding the Terms of Reference for the current Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand’s handling of the Covid-19 response.

This is an extremely important opportunity for many of us like-minded people to help determine and shape how this inquiry will go.

There is a lack of clarity regarding whether this is the independent investigation mentioned in the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement or simply a larger Royal Commission outlined in the National-ACT coalition agreement. It is regrettable that both coalition agreements contain conflicting statements, but let us not dwell on this and instead act: Time is of the essence!

My key points to understanding the politics on this are:

• The current Royal Commission is costing around $100 million. It is difficult to see this government paying another similar amount for a separate inquiry when government spending is out of control and needs to be cut back.

• The current inquiry was only ever set up to legitimise the Labour Government’s responses to Covid, not to uncover the truth.

• A Royal Commission is independent, but it needs to be overseen by the right people.

• The public needs to participate in the consultation process over the Terms of Reference. It can’t just be left to politicians.

• New Zealand First’s coalition agreement is strongly worded, but because of ACT’s agreement, there is going to be some compromise needed. (Remember, New Zealand First got only just over 6% of the vote.) Once the new expanded Terms of Reference are decided (with the help of the public), New Zealand First Minister Casey Costello will be the Minister in charge of the inquiry.

• Time is of the essence: you have only until the 24th of March to get your comments and recommendations submitted.

Drafting your submission:

• Submissions are to be sent in via the online portal: https://haveyoursay.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz/public-input/englishtor

• It is a good idea to write your submission out on a separate document and then copy and paste the final draft into the online form at the relevant sections.

• If for some reason the form doesn’t work, contact DIA: inquiryintocovid-19lessons@dia.govt.nz

The team at RCR have created video guidelines and templates for your personalised submission:

https://realitycheck.radio/covidinquiry/provide-feedback/#action4

Key points to make

1. The current remaining two commissioners must be replaced. There's little public confidence in two men appointed by Jacinda Ardern's government. As reflected in the New Zealand First coalition agreement, there must be at least one international expert.

2. The commission's support staff needs to be replaced, or at the very least, the lead staff members must be replaced, with a guarantee that they will remain impartial. We suggest a mix of competent lawyers, litigators, researchers who are familiar with the issues that must be inquired into, such as use of lockdowns, border response, vaccine procurement, and efficacy (and safety), social and economic impacts, etc.

3. The current Royal Commission must also be changed from a “story telling exercise” to an adversarial inquiry to question those who made the decisions and the basis for making them.

4. The expanded Royal Commission needs to have the power to compel witnesses to give testimony, issue warrants of arrest for failure to appear, issue contempt for non-disclosure, and make recommendations.

5. To guarantee full public accountability, hearings should be live-streamed on the internet and a public television channel created for live viewing.

6. For the actual Terms of Reference, the term “Vaccine procurement and efficacy” needs to be amended to “Vaccine procurement, efficacy and safety.”

Questions we'd like to have answered by the Inquiry

1. To what extent did COVID-19 mandates constitute medical coercion, and how did this relate to individual autonomy in healthcare decisions?

2. Was the information communicated to patients before the injecting of an experimental drug, truthful, and in a way that makes up "Informed Consent"?

3. In what ways did COVID-19 mandates raise concerns regarding potential discrimination and the infringement of fundamental human rights?

4. Did the public discourse surrounding COVID-19 mandates involve the utilisation of tactics such as bullying and shaming to influence individual choices?

5. Have documented instances of job terminations occurred solely due to an individual's refusal to comply with COVID-19 vaccine mandates, potentially constituting unlawful employment practises?

6. How did potential biases within the medical field and the selective presentation of scientific information influence the public debate surrounding COVID-19 vaccine mandates?

7. Were there instances where medical professionals advocating against mandatory vaccination subjected to public disparagement without prior examination of their evidence-based arguments?

8. What were the specific concerns regarding the contractual agreements with Pfizer, the potential for information censorship, and the redaction of details pertaining to the underlying gene-based technology employed in the vaccine?

9. Is there documented evidence of scientific data concerning the efficacy of mask-wearing being redacted or suppressed, and if so, what potential consequences did this have on public health strategies?

10. To what extent did the implementation of COVID-19 lockdowns negatively impact the operation and potential closure of businesses?

11. Was there a quantifiable increase in suicide rates during the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what are the potential contributing factors that may have influenced this rise?

12. Have official reports documented a rise in overall mortality rates that can be directly attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding public health mandates?

13. Were there documented increases in adverse reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccines, and if so, what was the nature and extent of these reported cases?

14. Have official health agencies documented a rise in specific comorbidities, such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and blood clots, following COVID-19 vaccination?

15. Is there evidence suggesting an increase in overall physical and mental health disabilities following the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what potential factors may have contributed to this rise?

16. What scientific basis exists to address concerns regarding the potential for intergenerational harm arising from the administration of synthetic mRNA vaccines?

17. Did the widespread vaccination campaign during the pandemic contribute to the emergence of viral mutations and compromise vaccine effectiveness? If so, what are the long-term implications of this phenomenon?

18. Has there been a systematic disregard or downplaying of potential harm associated with the mRNA-generated spike protein produced by COVID-19 vaccines?

19. What constitutes a statistically significant safety signal that should warrant the immediate suspension and investigation of a particular medical intervention?

20. Why were multiple instances of potential safety concerns disregarded during the COVID-pandemic, and do these practises continue to be observed?

21. What factors contributed to the inadequate monitoring of safety signals throughout the pandemic, including the potential overlooking of international medical evidence suggesting widespread adverse effects?

22. Have there been documented instances of unusual clusters of fatalities occurring at specific vaccination sites?

23. In what way have the implemented pandemic response measures impacted the mental health and well-being of New Zealand's citizens, particularly the youth population?

24. What are the potential short-term and long-term consequences of the pandemic response on the overall educational standards within New Zealand?

25. Were there amendments made to the New Zealand Bill of Rights that infringed upon individual liberties in the context of enforcing the COVID-19 mandates? If so, were these modifications implemented lawfully?

26. How were emergency response bills authorised and amended in a manner that contravened established legal procedures during the pandemic?

27. What reasoning justifies the exemption of over 11,000 government employees and contractors from following the COVID-19 vaccine mandates?

28. To what extent did COVID-19 mandates conflict with the principles enshrined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

29. Considering both the individual and societal costs, what is the comprehensive evaluation of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of public health outcomes, social order, and cohesion, economic well-being, environmental impact, and potential long-term consequences?

---

For background, New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) has written several excellent articles as background to help you with writing an informed and reasoned submission:

• https://nzdsos.com/2024/03/15/nz-covid-inquiry-deadline-a-simplified-guide-to-submit-your-feedback/

• https://nzdsos.com/2024/02/22/inquiry-information/

• https://nzdsos.com/2024/02/19/tony-blakely-part-one/

• https://nzdsos.com/2024/02/19/tony-blakely-part-two/
  

Voices For Freedom (VFF) has an excellent set of tools to help you with making a submission:

• https://www.voicesforfreedom.co.nz/covid-inquiry/
  

Finally, here are some relevant background articles for your research, written by my friend, Dr Guy Hatchard:

• https://hatchardreport.com/?s=commission+of+inquiry

Thank you for your continued support. Your contribution is needed and is valuable. This is how democracy works. Make it happen!

---

The Natural Health Alliance speaks out:

The Natural Health Alliance (NHA), which I'm closely associated with and a keen supporter of, is promoting a similar message to what we're saying. Thank you, NHA!

The more of us who write in and demand more comprehensive and robust terms of reference for this inquiry, the more likely we'll get them. The Alliance wrote the following in their February Newsletter: Covid Inquiry

A robust and proper inquiry into New Zealand's Covid response is of interest to many of our members, who have contacted us seeking further information.

All of our businesses were impacted by the government's response to Covid and much of what they implemented needs to be reflected on and questioned.

On 2 February, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Hon Brooke van Velden, announced that the government is seeking consultation on revised terms of reference for the current Royal Commission of Inquiry that was instituted by Jacinda Ardern. There has been considerable public dissatisfaction with the restricted and narrow terms of reference for the current inquiry, as well as the current Commissioners that were appointed.

The proposed revised terms of reference that the government is consulting on have been taken from both the New Zealand First and the ACT coalition agreements. They are:

• Use of multiple lockdowns

• Vaccine procurement and efficacy

• The social and economic impacts on both regional and national levels

• Whether the decisions made, and steps taken, were justified

• The cost-effectiveness of the Government's policies, and whether the rules set by the Government appropriately balanced COVID-19 elimination with other goals

• The Government's utilisation of partnerships with business and professional groups

• The extent of disruption to New Zealanders' health, education, and business as a result of the Government's policies

• If the Government's response was consistent with the rule of law

• How New Zealand's pandemic preparedness compared to other countries

A number of our members have proposed that the inquiry must look into "vaccine procurement, efficacy and safety." We think this is an important message to deliver.

There is a further belief that the Royal Commission needs to have the power to compel witnesses to give testimony, issue warrants of arrest for failure to appear, issue contempt for non-disclosure, as well as make its recommendations based on its findings. A number of our members have added that the inquiry needs to be adversarial so that politicians, health officials and public servants can be questioned thoroughly on their statements and testimony.

Whatever the eventual outcome, we urge everyone to have their say on the expanded terms before the 24th March deadline. Many of our members have been unhappy with the previous government's response to Covid, and we have the opportunity to mould the inquiry to deliver a meaningful outcome.

Your submission can be delivered via the Covid Inquiry website here: https://haveyoursay.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz/public-input/englishtor/

---

Consider joining and supporting NZ Rising:

https://nzrising.co.nz/

---

Let's take care to avoid this kind of thing happening here:

https://blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/academics-raise-concerns-about-shortcomings