Kirsten Murfitt
@MurfittTauranga • 12,385 subscribers
Lawyer, writer and advocate for justice.
Shorts
Videos
Why is New Zealand a member of this UN Agency which wants to connect our molecules and cells to the Internet. This is not a joke. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is a “specialized UN agency”. They say that the: “Internet of Everything (IoE). This vision of IoE, therefore, is that of connecting our already developed infrastructure to all observable entities in the universe, ranging from molecules and cells within human body to the people and planets.” When did they ask you? Will we get a choice? According to its website, ITU is working towards implementing Agenda 2030. The Organization has 194 Member States and over 1000 companies, universities, and international organizations. Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, ITU is the oldest UN agency with regional offices worldwide. ITU’s website states that: “We facilitate international connectivity in communication networks. We allocate global radio spectrum and satellite orbits, develop the technical standards that ensure networks and technologies connect seamlessly, and work to improve access to digital technologies in underserved communities worldwide. ITU works to bring digital connectivity to everyone, providing a trusted, multilateral platform to broker international agreements and standards, share knowledge, build capacity, and work with members and partners to spread access to technology around the world.” Thank you to Sabrina Wallace and others for raising these issues. A link to her videos in the comments. Holyhekatuiteka Christine Anderson Barry Young Concerned Citizen Coronavirus Plushie Andrew Bridgen James Lindsay, anti-Communist Cam Slater Aly Cook Dr Tess Lawrie Dr Aseem Malhotra Dr. Simone Gold Dr. Simon Goddek Dr. David Martin DR JANE RUBY™️ Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® Psinergy-solafide Corinne Nokel
Kirsten Murfitt75,472 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Ardern knew from the start that the vaccine didn't stop transmission. Then her government admitted on 10 September 2021 that the vaccine had not been tested to ascertain if it stopped transmission. Yet 44 days later she implemented vaccine passports and more mandates, proudly announcing a two tier society. Does sound like a kind and empathetic leader to you? Copy of the Ministry of Health's letter in the comment.
Kirsten Murfitt66,674 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Who else wants to leave NZ? I am feeling emotional as it seems there is no justice for the people. Full stop.
Kirsten Murfitt40,823 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten
What Suppression Order? Why can't Hipkins talk? I have sent the following Official Information Act request this morning. "Hi On 13 August 2025, Chris Hipkins MP, stated in a radio interview with Mike Hoskings that he was under a suppression order. I request the following information under the Official Information Act 1982: 1. A copy of the suppression order; 2. The details of the legal proceeding that resulted in the suppression order; 3.The name of the party that initiated the court order for the suppression order; 4. The duration of the suppression order. I require the information for a submission to Parliament which is due on 18 September 2025. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kind regards Kirsten Murfitt" The Platform NZ Newstalk ZB NZDSOS - NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science NZ and the MRNA Sean Plunket Sam Uffindell Lobby for Good The Platform NZ
Kirsten Murfitt33,615 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten
Never forget her words and actions: "There are people who are at risk, and I am not one of them." "I do want to demonstrate that (Pfizer's Jab) is not only safe to take at the time, but long term it's safe." How could she claim that the vaccine was safe in the long term back in 2021? How could Duncan not pick up on this point? @c_plushie ricardo carmona NZDSOS - NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science Voices For Freedom
Kirsten Murfitt56,739 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren
Despite Pfizer acknowledging significant risks and uncertainties, the New Zealand Government introduced vaccine mandates and passports. The following clause was included in the African and Albanian contracts with Pfizer for purchase of Covid 19 vaccines: 2.1 (b) Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that (i) Pfizer’s efforts to develop and manufacture the Product are aspirational in nature and subject to SIGNIFICANT RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES Why mandate a vaccine that had not been tested to ascertain if it stopped transmission and which had significant risks and uncertainties? What was in the New Zealand contract? Some brave New Zealand police made this video in response to the mandates. Delivery of the Release the Pfizer Contract Petition to Parliament. Join Kirsten for the Petition Delivery: When: 12 pm on Tuesday 19 August 2025 Where: Steps of Parliament in Wellington Before I deliver the petition to my local MP, Sam Uffindell MP, let’s make it as big as possible to show our Government how many of us want to see them commit to releasing the Pfizer contract which led to the discriminatory and illogical mandates, along with costing us billions and impacting on our health system in 2025. Can you spare a minute to spread the word about the petition delivery by reposting to friends and family.
Kirsten Murfitt30,035 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten
Delivery of the Release the Pfizer Contract Petition to Parliament. Join Kirsten for the Petition Delivery: When: 12 pm on Tuesday 19 August 2025 Where: Steps of Parliament in Wellington Why do you think the Pfizer Contract should be released to the Public in 2025? Before I deliver the petition to my local MP, Sam Uffindell MP, let’s make it as big as possible to show our Government how many of us want to see them commit to releasing the Pfizer contract which led to the discriminatory and illogical mandates, along with costing us billions and impacting on our health system in 2025. Can you spare a minute to spread the word about the petition delivery by reposting to friends and family. NZDSOS - NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science NZ and the MRNA Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺 The Platform NZ
Kirsten Murfitt29,193 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten
![It would be great if the chair of Transparency International, Anne Tolley, had to answer questions about transactions which have contributed to local rate increases. In my honest opinion, decision-making under the tenure of the commissioners has raised concerns. For example, public land was sold below market value on terms favourable to buyers over broader interests of ratepayers. In contrast, private land was purchased above or at market value often with favourable terms to the seller, raising questions about the cost and value to ratepayers. I made this LGOIMA request this morning stemming from the Council's Public Meeting. I would like to thank the new Council and the mayor for being far more transparent than the former unelected (but selected) Commissioners: Hi The Local Government Act 2002 promotes transparency, accountability, and democratic local government. The Auditor General stated in 2021 that: “Public accountability is about public organisations demonstrating to Parliament and the public their competence, reliability, and honesty in their use of public money and other public resources” Accordingly, I am making a request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (“LGOIMA”) regarding the property at 160 to 176 Devonport Road, Tauranga (“the Property”). Second Valuation At the Council’s public meeting on 3 March 2025 (“March Council Meeting”), the Mayor stated in regard to the Property that: “The thing that disappoints me … but it is that it is another example where we have paid towards the top of the range of what we could have paid. You know, I think, we have heard today that potentially HOBEC [Holland Beckett Lawyers] pulled out of it cos it wasn’t economic to do a development and, its, again we have underestimated the asbestos costs of removing a building. Potentially we have underestimated the geotech issues we are going to have with the site. We have been through this with 90 Devonport Road where we sold an asset for a similar value and had to reduce it to make it work. Yet we have decided to pay the $10,000,000.00 and I am sure we are not going to get back from the vendors the extra to make this work financially. So, I get we bought this as a strategic asset, but we need to look at our processes more. We need to do our due diligence properly and we need to start paying market values for properties not above and I know we have one valuation that justifies this cost but the other one doesn’t back that up. I think that going forward that value for money piece is that we need to get a bit smarter with some of these transactions that we do”. At a public meeting earlier this week, a ratepayer asked the mayor about the second valuation. I understand that the mayor allegedly stated that the second valuation came in around $8.6 million to the early $9millions. This raises question given the Council confirmed in a LGOIMA response to me dated 19 September 2024 (“September LGOMIA”) that: 1) The Council paid $10 million for the Property and spent a further $1.53 million in demolition and development costs for 100 open air carparks; and 2) The gross annual debt funding cost for the Property (land and development) was $556,000 as at the date of the LGOIMA response. The Council’s December 2022 Agenda states that: “…5. The properties are earmarked for commercial/mixed use redevelopment in Priority One’s CBD blueprint, which forms part of Council’s City Centre Action and Investment Plan. 6. With this property becoming available, staff have identified several facets of the Strategic Acquisition Fund which does not enable it to be used efficiently for acquisitions of this nature. Staff will review this policy, to enable it to be used more strategically and flexibly, while still retaining appropriate checks and balances.” Visual Barriers for Carparks By way of summary, Council staff and Councillors stated at the March Council Meeting that $10 million of public funds were used to purchase the Property; where existing retail and offices were demolished which resulted in lost rental and rates and increased debt. That 100 “visible carparks” were established based on “anecdotal demand” (on the fringe of the CBD) after a more central carpark around the Central Precinct Development was closed by the Council around the same time. In addition, the Council is losing money on the carpark. A Councillor asked: “ … was it of a mindset that the Commissioners did this without evidence or did the staff actually present them with the evidence, and did they override it?” A Council staff member responded, that while he was not employed by the Council at that time, he understood that: “Yes, Elizabeth Street [existing carpark close to the Property] always has plenty of … or pretty much always has plenty of capacity. However, there is and we have done some work and currently doing some work to remove that visual barrier of a going to use a parking building” LGOIMA Request I request the following information: 1)The second valuation for the Property; 2) An unredacted copy of the Telfer Valuation dated December 2022; 3)The financial loss for the carpark broken down into calendar months since the carpark opened in September 2024; 4)All information concerning the “anecdotal demand” to develop a carpark on the Property; 5)The previous work that the Council undertook concerning removing a visual barrier for carparking buildings; 6)The cost of the work noted at point 5; 7)The current work that the Council is undertaking concerning the removal of visual barriers for carparking buildings; 8) The cost of the work noted at point 7; 9) All information concerning the “geotech issues” for the Property; and 10) All information about the Council review of the Strategic Acquisition Fund following the meeting in December 2022. While I understand that the Council has 20 working days to provide the second valuation to me, I would appreciate it if the document was sent sooner given that the mayor has made reference to the document and its contents at public meetings. I am happy to wait for the full statutory time period for the remainder of the information (if such time is required by the Council). In regards to another matter, I request that the information provided to me in my privacy request be unredacted to avoid having to take this matter to the Privacy Commissioner and Ombudsman. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kind regards Kirsten Murfitt Please head along to the rally against the Rate Increases at Memorial Park tomorrow at 1pm. Links to the full Council meeting in comments. New Zealand First Sam Uffindell NZ National Party ACT New Zealand New Zealand Labour Erika Harvey Lobby for Good Sean Plunket The Platform NZ nzherald](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1923582479681847626/amplify_video_thumb/1923581780696731649/img/XZDgWX_PSrOI4Ph5.jpg)
It would be great if the chair of Transparency International, Anne Tolley, had to answer questions about transactions which have contributed to local rate increases. In my honest opinion, decision-making under the tenure of the commissioners has raised concerns. For example, public land was sold below market value on terms favourable to buyers over broader interests of ratepayers. In contrast, private land was purchased above or at market value often with favourable terms to the seller, raising questions about the cost and value to ratepayers. I made this LGOIMA request this morning stemming from the Council's Public Meeting. I would like to thank the new Council and the mayor for being far more transparent than the former unelected (but selected) Commissioners: Hi The Local Government Act 2002 promotes transparency, accountability, and democratic local government. The Auditor General stated in 2021 that: “Public accountability is about public organisations demonstrating to Parliament and the public their competence, reliability, and honesty in their use of public money and other public resources” Accordingly, I am making a request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (“LGOIMA”) regarding the property at 160 to 176 Devonport Road, Tauranga (“the Property”). Second Valuation At the Council’s public meeting on 3 March 2025 (“March Council Meeting”), the Mayor stated in regard to the Property that: “The thing that disappoints me … but it is that it is another example where we have paid towards the top of the range of what we could have paid. You know, I think, we have heard today that potentially HOBEC [Holland Beckett Lawyers] pulled out of it cos it wasn’t economic to do a development and, its, again we have underestimated the asbestos costs of removing a building. Potentially we have underestimated the geotech issues we are going to have with the site. We have been through this with 90 Devonport Road where we sold an asset for a similar value and had to reduce it to make it work. Yet we have decided to pay the $10,000,000.00 and I am sure we are not going to get back from the vendors the extra to make this work financially. So, I get we bought this as a strategic asset, but we need to look at our processes more. We need to do our due diligence properly and we need to start paying market values for properties not above and I know we have one valuation that justifies this cost but the other one doesn’t back that up. I think that going forward that value for money piece is that we need to get a bit smarter with some of these transactions that we do”. At a public meeting earlier this week, a ratepayer asked the mayor about the second valuation. I understand that the mayor allegedly stated that the second valuation came in around $8.6 million to the early $9millions. This raises question given the Council confirmed in a LGOIMA response to me dated 19 September 2024 (“September LGOMIA”) that: 1) The Council paid $10 million for the Property and spent a further $1.53 million in demolition and development costs for 100 open air carparks; and 2) The gross annual debt funding cost for the Property (land and development) was $556,000 as at the date of the LGOIMA response. The Council’s December 2022 Agenda states that: “…5. The properties are earmarked for commercial/mixed use redevelopment in Priority One’s CBD blueprint, which forms part of Council’s City Centre Action and Investment Plan. 6. With this property becoming available, staff have identified several facets of the Strategic Acquisition Fund which does not enable it to be used efficiently for acquisitions of this nature. Staff will review this policy, to enable it to be used more strategically and flexibly, while still retaining appropriate checks and balances.” Visual Barriers for Carparks By way of summary, Council staff and Councillors stated at the March Council Meeting that $10 million of public funds were used to purchase the Property; where existing retail and offices were demolished which resulted in lost rental and rates and increased debt. That 100 “visible carparks” were established based on “anecdotal demand” (on the fringe of the CBD) after a more central carpark around the Central Precinct Development was closed by the Council around the same time. In addition, the Council is losing money on the carpark. A Councillor asked: “ … was it of a mindset that the Commissioners did this without evidence or did the staff actually present them with the evidence, and did they override it?” A Council staff member responded, that while he was not employed by the Council at that time, he understood that: “Yes, Elizabeth Street [existing carpark close to the Property] always has plenty of … or pretty much always has plenty of capacity. However, there is and we have done some work and currently doing some work to remove that visual barrier of a going to use a parking building” LGOIMA Request I request the following information: 1)The second valuation for the Property; 2) An unredacted copy of the Telfer Valuation dated December 2022; 3)The financial loss for the carpark broken down into calendar months since the carpark opened in September 2024; 4)All information concerning the “anecdotal demand” to develop a carpark on the Property; 5)The previous work that the Council undertook concerning removing a visual barrier for carparking buildings; 6)The cost of the work noted at point 5; 7)The current work that the Council is undertaking concerning the removal of visual barriers for carparking buildings; 8) The cost of the work noted at point 7; 9) All information concerning the “geotech issues” for the Property; and 10) All information about the Council review of the Strategic Acquisition Fund following the meeting in December 2022. While I understand that the Council has 20 working days to provide the second valuation to me, I would appreciate it if the document was sent sooner given that the mayor has made reference to the document and its contents at public meetings. I am happy to wait for the full statutory time period for the remainder of the information (if such time is required by the Council). In regards to another matter, I request that the information provided to me in my privacy request be unredacted to avoid having to take this matter to the Privacy Commissioner and Ombudsman. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kind regards Kirsten Murfitt Please head along to the rally against the Rate Increases at Memorial Park tomorrow at 1pm. Links to the full Council meeting in comments. New Zealand First Sam Uffindell NZ National Party ACT New Zealand New Zealand Labour Erika Harvey Lobby for Good Sean Plunket The Platform NZ nzherald
Kirsten Murfitt32,274 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
UPDATE: New Zealanders deserve the chance to decide in a democratic way if we stay in the WHO or not. Not the Cabinet behind closed doors. You, me, all of us should decide. That is why I am calling for a referendum. We now have two ways that people can support this campaign: 1) Electronic Parliamentary Petition; 2) Citizens Initiated Referendum Petition. (Links in the comments) Anyone can sign the Electronic Parliamentary Petition. However, the Citizens Initiated Referendum Petition can only be signed by people on the NZ electoral roll and it’s old school – by law you have to sign with a pen and on the paper form. We need signatures from 10% of all registered voters. That’s about 400,000 signatures. It’s a huge number – about equal to every person in Wellington City times two. However, 4000 people collecting 100 signatures, 10,000 collecting 40 signatures or 40,000 collecting 10 signatures gets us to the threshold for a referendum. This is truly a grassroots effort – from the ground up, powered by ordinary Kiwis. We don’t have corporate sponsors. We don’t have taxpayer funding. In fact, under referendum rules, we’re not allowed to spend more than $50,000 on promoting and gathering signatures. However, other groups can spend up to $50,000 promoting the Citizen Initiated Referendum Petition as long as they don’t work with us. If we gather enough signatures, Parliament has to notice. It’s your voice in action: by gathering enough support we can make Parliament debate and act, giving everyday New Zealanders a say in our future. Together, we can show the world what a determined group of Kiwis can do. They may have the World Health Organization, but we have each other – and that is stronger. NZ and the MRNA NZDSOS - NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science James Lindsay, anti-Communist Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH® Lee Donoghue Aly Cook Coronavirus Plushie Cam Slater Dr. David Martin Elon Musk Jim Ferguson James Roguski Matt Shelton Perth Today 🇦🇺 Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
Kirsten Murfitt25,115 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Hipkins' suppression order is lawfully suppressed. Chris Hipkins, the former Prime Minister, and one of the "men" who was at the forefront of New Zealand’s COVID-19 response has stated publicly that he is under a suppression order preventing him appearing publicly at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19. I sent an Official Information Act (OIA) request on Saturday, 23 August, asking for the basics: What case is this about? Who applied for the suppression order? How long does it last? Can we see the order itself? The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet have stated that he is an MP, not covered by the OIA. Ask the courts. I have never had an OIA answered so quickly. The OIA rules mean we, the public, can’t know whether a former Prime Minister is under a suppression order or not. When voters are denied the right to know whether their leaders are subject to court orders, we lose the ability to make informed choices. That’s not democracy. That’s control. And it’s part of a bigger pattern I’ve been seeing in Local Government: Councils downgrading public assets to avoid consultation. “Commercial sensitivity” used to hide deals. Communities priced out of challenging flawed decisions. Piece by piece, the public’s right to know is shrinking, while insiders govern in the shadows. This isn’t just about Chris Hipkins. It’s about the direction New Zealand is heading. If this stands, we are sliding from an open democracy into a managed one, where decisions are made for the people, but never with the people. ACT New Zealand Newstalk ZB Sean Plunket The Platform NZ NZDSOS - NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science Lobby for Good
Kirsten Murfitt16,425 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten
Sam Uffindell MP accepting 18,911 signatures collected in less than 6 months. Thank you for upholding your duty to represent the people. This petition has become more important now that the former decision makers have refused to appear publicly in Phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19. Hipkins, a former decision maker, claims he doesn't want to set a precedent for Ministers to appear before a Royal Commission of Inquiry. Excuse me? He may get significant public abuse. How quickly he forgets the hate that was directed at the unvaccinated and injured during the mandates and the reign of the one source truth. Oh, and he is under a suppression order. Don't we have a right to know why he is under a suppression order given he admits we are paying his legal bill. Transparency and accountability are fundamental to public trust in an democratic institutions.
Kirsten Murfitt15,676 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten
"Comrades". Ardern graduated from the University of Waikato in 2001 on a Masonic scholarship, then worked for the office of then New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark (one of the champions of the Pandemic Treaty). She later worked in London as an adviser in the Cabinet Office during Tony Blair's premiership. In 2008, Ardern was elected as the president of the International Union of Socialist Youth before going on to graduate from the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leaders program. She then "surprised" many becoming the world's youngest head of state at 37 years old. United Nations next?
Kirsten Murfitt16,772 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Hipkins' infamous statement on misinformation - "I was alarmed at the number of letters I have received from people concerned that the Government would be making COVID-19 vaccines compulsory. This is a direct result of deliberate misinformation that is being spread through social media. The government is not making COVID-19 or any other vaccines mandatory".
Kirsten Murfitt12,926 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten
Why did the Wallabies get a MIQ exemption yet Shane and his team mates did not? Why were there rules for some and not for others during a "deadly pandemic"? Did the decision to exempt the Wallabies put the public at risk 🥴 or was MIQ theatre? Why was Shane made to take an injection that he did not want and why wouldn't they tell him what was in the injection at MIQ? Full video and OIA information in the comments. Extract from OIA below: "Hi all As discussed with a range of folks this afternoon, advice has gone to Minister Verrall proposing that she exempt the Wallabies from the current ABO requirements and enable them to arrive in NZ quarantine free by 30 July (Friday thisweek)." ACT New Zealand Barry Young Sean Plunket NZ National Party NZ and the MRNA Wide Awake Media NZDSOS - NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science The Platform NZ
Kirsten Murfitt11,522 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten
