Subscriptions, Current Issue & Back Issues

Current Issue | Annual Subscriptions | Back Issues

Tag: New Zealand

A Farewell To NZ Politician John Key

(To anyone who doesn’t know, blue is the colour of the NZ National party, and John Key, ex PM, left parliement yesterday)

“My My, Hey Hey (Out Of The Blue)”

My my, hey hey
Rock and roll is here to stay
It’s better to burn out
Than to fade away
My my, hey hey.

Out of the blue
and into the black
They give you this,
but you pay for that
And once you’re gone,
you can never come back
When you’re out of the blue
and into the black.

The king is gone
but he’s not forgotten
This is the story
of a Johnny Rotten
It’s better to burn out
than it is to rust
The king is gone
but he’s not forgotten.

Hey hey, my my
Rock and roll can never die
There’s more to the picture
Than meets the eye.
Hey hey, my my.

(Neil Young).

Image result for john key cartoon

NICKY HAGER: New Book “Hit And Run”. SAS In Afghanistan And The Meaning Of Honour.

Image result for nicky hager

Causing a stir in the MSM right now:

New Hager book is Hit & Run: The New Zealand SAS in Afghanistan and the Meaning of Honour

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/21-03-2017/new-hager-book-is-hit-run-the-new-zealand-sas-in-afghanistan-and-the-meaning-of-honour/

Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson have just published Hit & Run: The New Zealand SAS in Afghanistan and the meaning of honour, which they say ‘tells the story of a dark and guilty secret of New Zealand’s recent history’, and makes the case that six civilians were killed and 15 wounded in an SAS operation.

Below is the Q&A they have issued to media. Beneath that, the NZ Defence Force response, issued at 8.25pm. More comment, analysis and response to follow.

What, where, when, and who?

The events in the book occurred in 2010, mainly in an isolated and mountainous area of Baghlan province known as Tirgiran valley, about 50 kilometres across country from the then-Kiwi base in neighbouring Bamiyan province. New Zealand SAS troopers, supported by Afghan commandos and US helicopters, raided two villages in the valley early in the morning on 22 August 2010. The SAS believed, based on flimsy intelligence, that they would find a group of Taliban fighters who’d attacked a New Zealand patrol 19 days earlier. But the group wasn’t there, and the 21 people killed and wounded in the operation were all civilians – mostly women and children. The campaign continued over the following two years.

How do you know 21 people were wounded or died?

The book contains details of each person: their name and family connections, and injuries, as well as details of precisely where they were when they were wounded or killed. These names have been officially confirmed by the district governor and by numerous other sources; they were all civilians. Each name on the list has a human story: the recently graduated school teacher home on holiday who was killed behind his parents’ house; the three-year-old girl killed by exploding munitions as her mother was trying to carry her to safety; the farmer who lay without medical assistance for nine hours, with a piece of shrapnel lodged in his body, before he died. (See chapter 4)

The New Zealand Defence Force has claimed on multiple occasions that only insurgents were killed in this raid. Is this possible?

No. The defence force knew very soon after the raid that none of the fighters they were targeting had been found during the raid. The claims about killing insurgents, made then and later, were simply false. Indeed, within a day of the raid, an Afghan informer gave our defence force video footage that had been taken on a  mobile phone showing the whole insurgent group arriving alive and well at the funerals for the dead villagers. (See chapter 5). It was common in Afghanistan for US-led forces to claim that civilians killed during military operations were “dead insurgents”.

Who is responsible for the events described in the book?

Most of all, people in the SAS. They gathered the intelligence, planned the raid and commanded and led the operation. The authors believe that the deaths and injuries of 21 civilians, the destruction of homes, and the beating and torture of a detainee were due in large part to their actions and inactions, and that they led the efforts to keep it quiet afterwards. Next there are officers in the defence force who were responsible for overseeing the SAS and who should have investigated more responsibly when news of civilian casualties emerged. This includes the then-chief of defence force Lieutenant-General Jerry Mateparae, who was in Afghanistan at the time, and who watched on the screens at the SAS operations room in Kabul as the operation unfolded. Then there are the political leaders. Most government decisions are made by individual ministers or by Cabinet as a whole. However in this case, as Chapter 2 describes, the prime minister John Key was briefed by phone from the SAS compound in Kabul and personally gave his approval for the raid.

How did you get the information for the book?

This book would not have been possible without the assistance of present and former New Zealand, Afghan and US military personnel, who spoke to the authors on the condition that their names and identities would not be revealed. These interviews allowed the facts gradually to be assembled and cross-checked. At the same time, people from the Afghan villages that were raided assisted enormously, describing in detail what they experienced and where and when each part of the event occurred.

Why should New Zealanders care?

New Zealanders were told that their military was in Afghanistan to bring peace and reconstruction and that they treated the locals with empathy and respect. But when a New Zealander died in the attack on a New Zealand patrol, our military response was reckless: innocent people were killed and wounded, houses were blown up or burnt down, and our soldiers did nothing to check on or assist the wounded. All this happened in New Zealand’s name, in an operation commanded by New Zealanders, by people whose salaries are paid for by the New Zealand public. Our soldiers’ actions, and those of their US allies, alienated locals and led many to join or support the insurgents and was a key factor in the Taliban gaining complete control of the area.

Surely bad things happen in all wars?

Even in wars and conflicts, people must behave legally. It is vital for the world that they do, or there would be chaos. This is why we have international agreements like the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture which New Zealand has signed and is committed to observing. The New Zealand Defence Force prides itself on obeying international law and acting with integrity. Its core values and Code of Conduct lay out the principles and rules. What is seen in this book goes against much of what the New Zealand military stands for.

Is this book an attack on the troops?

Not at all. Many people in our defence force will be appalled by what is revealed in the book. It was kept secret from most of them as well. Indeed, there would be no book now if there had not been professional New Zealand personnel who were upset with what happened, believed the story needed to be told and helped the authors. Most criticism in the book is reserved for the senior staff and politicians who made the decisions, failed to stop abuses and then, later, when news of the tragedy began to leak out, did nothing about it and joined in the cover up.

Have parts of this story come out before?

Yes. A few of details have emerged in the past, thanks to the efforts of journalists. But the vast majority of the story has remained secret, and what the authors have discovered is much worse than anyone knew. As the book reveals in chapter two, the defence minister at the time, Wayne Mapp, has privately called the raid on Tirgiran “our biggest and most disastrous operation. A fiasco.” (Chapter 2.) But the military decided to keep it all from the public.

Is the SAS responsible for casualties and destruction of property caused by US helicopter gunships or the torture of a detainee by the Afghan secret police?

For a number of reasons, the answer is yes. Under military law, the commander of an operation is responsible for the actions of the subordinate personnel. This was an SAS-led and commanded operation, with a dedicated radio network linking the various New Zealand, Afghan and US components. The SAS collected the intelligence, decided the targets, and led the raid on the ground. That ground commander reported to SAS operations staff at their compound in Kabul. The SAS had requested the use of US helicopters for the operation and were responsible for briefing the pilots. During the operation, US attack helicopters made numerous attacks in two different villages while the SAS commander was present at the scene, yet the SAS on the ground did nothing to help the people caught in the heavy fire. In addition, some of the deaths appear to have been from bullets, not helicopter weapons. An inquiry is needed to determine if any of those deaths were caused by SAS snipers who were reportedly involved in the raid. (See chapters 3 and 4.) Later, when one of the fighters was captured in Kabul, he was beaten by an SAS trooper and handed to the Afghan secret police, where he was tortured. It is not good enough to say that our Afghan allies were responsible for the torture; the SAS knew the people they were handing him to were notorious for mistreating and torturing detainees, yet they transferred him anyway (Chapter 6). When they learnt he had been tortured, they did nothing.

Does the book undermine the safety of the troops by talking about secret SAS operations?

No. And it is very important that “security” isn’t used as an excuse for the military and government to evade responsibility for their decisions and actions. The events in the book occurred when New Zealand was running a military base in Bamiyan province and an SAS contingent in Kabul, but both groups returned to New Zealand several years ago. This is the time to face up to wrongdoing. In fact, international law requires countries to investigate their own breaches, including potential war crimes. The government and military have failed to do this. It’s fallen to others to get the story out.

Are you saying there were war crimes?

War crimes are a highly technical area of law and the authors will leave it to experts to determine whether they have been committed. What we are saying is that there are grounds to suspect that war crimes were committed and it is vitally important that these are taken seriously and investigated in an independent way. We asked human rights lawyer and former Chief Human Rights Commissioner Margaret Bedggood to read the book before it was published and her response is printed on the back cover. She says the alleged actions and decisions described in the book, “if confirmed, would seriously breach international human rights and humanitarian law and could amount to war crimes.”

What do you expect the Defence Force and the government to do in response to the book?

We hope they will order a full and independent inquiry into the raid at Tirgiran and other operations and incidents outlined in the book. We also hope they’ll consider immediately offering an apology and reparations to the affected people in the Afghan villages. What do we expect? Based on their actions to date, there is a chance they may deny and dodge, running the dishonourable line that if anything bad happened – which they won’t admit – it had nothing to do with New Zealand. The whole country will be able to watch how they respond. It will be an important test of the military’s avowed core values: courage, commitment, comradeship and integrity.

Is this all too old to worry about?

Not at all. Things as serious as potential crimes of war fester away, sometimes for decades, until they reach the public and are dealt with. It took six years in this case until enough of the people involved felt ready and willing to help reveal the guilty secrets.

What needs to happen?

First, there needs to be the independent inquiry into all these events, with the power to gather all the relevant information and compel witnesses to appear. Besides the SAS’s own secret reports on their various operations, there may be radio communications and weapon systems video recorded during the raids. There will also be reports and official paperwork relating to the handover of the detainee to the Afghan secret police, and the reports the defence force received describing his torture and interrogation. Finally, there will be defence force and SAS documents showing how much the SAS tried to keep the story secret – even from the rest of the defence force. Chapter 7 documents years of cover-up and it is now time for the SAS and defence force to front up about this.

The government also needs to give the apology and reparations to the villagers. But perhaps most important, there need to to be changes to the SAS and defence force to make what occurred in Afghanistan less likely to happen again. The public should have been told about the SAS action within days of it happening – not years later. The public should not have had to rely on insiders being willing to be whistle blowers. The defence force needs a culture change to be more open to the kind of accountability and democratic control we expect from other government organisations. These issues are explored in Chapter 8.

NZDF RESPONSE TO BOOK

The New Zealand Defence Force stands by the statement it made dated 20 April 2011.

As the 2011 statement says, following the operation, allegations of civilian casualties were made. These were investigated by a joint Afghan Ministry of Defence, Ministry of the Interior and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) assessment team, in accordance with ISAF procedures.

The investigation concluded that the allegations of civilian casualties were unfounded.

The NZDF does not undertake investigations or inquiries into the actions of forces from other nations.  That was the role of the joint Afghan-ISAF investigation.

The NZDF is confident that New Zealand personnel conducted themselves in accordance with the applicable rules of engagement.

Chris Finalyson:

A spokesperson for acting defence minister Chris Finlayson has said in a statement: “The matter was investigated at the time and I am advised by the New Zealand Defence Force they stand by what they said at the time.”

Rappoport: NZ Drowning In fluoride!

A  subject I’m very passionate about myself, and have sent a submission to government about.
Pleasing to see Jon R. is on the case.
Image result for nz water fluoridation
By Jon Rappoport
The issue here is, who is going to decide whether the people of New Zealand are fluoridated? Who will be in charge? Communities, or the federal government?
From The NZHerald, 3/13/16—my comments are in CAPS:
“MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week.”
“The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government’s plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs).” [TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES—A TAKEOVER.]
“In a rare move, Parliament’s Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission.”
“In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all.” [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON’T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION—A CLUE THAT THE “TOLERANCE” FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.]
“‘The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important’, committee chairman and National MP Simon O’Connor said.”
“‘It’s a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought … the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard’.” [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.]
“Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O’Connor said.”
“At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply.” [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]
My further comments: right now, only 27 territories (out of a total of 67) in New Zealand have decided to fluoridate their water supplies. The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.
The federal government wants to take over and fluoridate everybody. The feds consider anti-fluoride activists the enemy and bunch of crazies.
I also suspect that money is an issue. Somebody close to the federal government is poised to make large profits from selling the chemicals, when the government decides the whole population should be toxified.
For the edification of New Zealand’s feds, who believe “the science is settled” and opposing activists are anti-science, here is a famous bombshell letter, written by the head of the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) union of in-house scientists, William Hirzy.
Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement- “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”-written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:
“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”
“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”
“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”
“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”
“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”
“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”
“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled,’Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”
“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”
“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled – and apparently uncontrollable – exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”
“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”
“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”
That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.
So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.
Quite clear.
The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years.
The federal government of New Zealand doesn’t care about any of this.
They just want to give the gift of poison to whole population of the country, and call it science.
Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
You can find this article and more at NoMoreFakeNews.com

NZ: We’re Coming For Your Water

 Considering the other water associated ills currently affecting New Zealand; Over-extraction by irrigating dairy farms, dirty dairying, the “swimmable rivers’ debacle,  the last thing we need is our precious water being practically given away to overseas corporations.  Read and weep people.
And the Environment minister wants us to believe that the amount of water taken is ‘Insignificant”. The same minister who wants us to believe a scummy, dried up river bed is a swimmable river. Sickening.

Chinese company Nongfu Spring wants more NZ water

  • 14/03/2017
  • By Isobel Ewing

 https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/should-companies-pay-royalties-to-export-water.html

A Chinese company wants to buy a Bay of Plenty water bottling plant and dramatically increase its water take, and it will get the water virtually for free.

Otakiri Springs currently pays only $2003 in compliance costs each year, allowing it to take 700,000 litres a day. The consent doesn’t expire until 2026.

Now prospective owner Nongfu Spring Natural Mineral Water wants to increase the water take to 5 million litres a day. It’s the same aquifer where New Zealand company Oravida takes 400,000 litres a day.

Whakatane District Councillor Mike van der Boom says companies are taking a precious resource from his area and not paying a cent for it.

“We’re subsidising them to make a profit,” he says.

“We just want our water preserved, a sustainable take – what is a sustainable take? Do they know what that is? I have a lot of questions and not many answers.”

Environment Minister Nick Smith maintains his stance that charging companies to take water is ridiculous

“If parties opposite want to start imposing new taxes on the use of water, where are they going to stop? Will air be charged for next?”

But Parliament’s opposition parties are united – get water, pay a royalty.

“We do believe that commercial businesses that are taking water out of the ground for free and then making a profit out of it should pay for the use of that resource,” Greens co-leader James Shaw says.

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters also says there should be a royalty paid.

“They will pay to export it offshore, and the money will go back to the local community from where the water was extracted in the first place.”

The Overseas Investment Office is currently assessing the sale of Otakiri Springs to Nongfu Spring.

Otakiri Springs has been contacted for comment about its plans.

Newshub.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/should-companies-pay-royalties-to-export-water.html

THIS IS WHAT NZ GOVERNMENT CALLS A “SWIMMABLE RIVER”:

Image result for n swimmable rivers

Image result for dune water quotes

In The Jaws Of The Dragon: Red Ice

NZ: 1080 Control Taken Away From Regional Councils, Use “Enforced”

Image result for 1080

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/new-nationwide-policies-for-1080-to-be-rolled-out/ar-AAnp7I5?ocid=SK2MDHP

The government is set to introduce new regulations to enforce the use of poisons like 1080.

Currently it is up to regional councils to set rules for the use of 1080 and other poisons in their region.

But now the government will set rules to apply throughout the country, rather than having different rules within each regional council.

Environment Minister Nick Smith said the move was expected to save $11 million over the next 20 years through reduced bureaucracy, and would reduce costs and delays for operators.

“And enable agencies, like the Department of Conservation to get on with the work of protecting New Zealand’s native species.”

He said stoats, rats and possums killed 25 million native birds per year, and the use of effective and efficient poisons like 1080 was necessary.

The national approach to the use of poisons such as 1080 and brodifacoum will come into effect in April.

The regulations have been approved under the Resource Management Act after consultation last year and an initial push by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Jan Wright.

Dr Smith said the national rules would be very tight and ensured risks were properly managed from both a safety and an environmental point of view.

“Step Away From The Fence And Put Away The Camera!”

Tuesday afternoon, heading into work, the drive takes me past the airport. I always glance in the direction of the US Antarctic Op. hangars to see what’s there. Usually a C17 Globemaster or an occasional C 130 Hercules. Last week the NASA DC 8 was visible.

But Tuesday? “Holy Crap!” I muttered, reached for my camera….curses! Left it at home again. I count two C17s and six C 130-Ts (The USAF ones with distinctive orange tail), and a big grey tail fin I didn’t recognise. That evening I ID’d it as an RNZAF 757-200, used for shuttling scientists and dignitaries around in comfort.

Yesterday, Wednesday 22 Feb, I was armed and ready. Took the right turn around the back road to airport, straight past the front fence of the base, parked up in the Antarctic Centre (public tourist attraction), and sprinted back up the road.

The two C17s were gone, but everything else was there, so I started snapping pics. As I approached the security gate and stood in the driveway trying to get a good shot, the security guard came out. He wasn’t smiling. I casually start wandering the other way, and see another dayglo vest and security tag emerge from a hangar and begin striding purposefully in my direction (see third pic. pic below). I grin and wave innocently, and back away to the other side of the road. The fun’s over and I’m late for work.

My supervisor asks what the holdup was? “Oh, just nearly got arrested by the USAF” I say casually. “Oh, nothing unusual for you then” he says shaking his head slowly.

It’s nearly end of the summer at the Ice, and these C130s are probably migrating northwards. Maybe they will investigate the nuclear incident that just happened in the Arctic?

Enjoy the pics guys!

Martin.

New Zealand: No Photo ID, No Entry to Ministry Of Social Development Sites

Image result for papers please nazi
From Morning Report7:50 am on 15 February 2017

Security guards must now stop anyone trying to enter a Work and Income office if they don’t have ID.

The changes are part of a new government policy being rolled out after two staff members were shot and killed at the Ashburton office in 2014.

But the guards’ union says it’s causing long queues and frustrations at the door.

Mike Treen of Unite Union said many of the people arriving for their appointments did not know about the policy.

He said guards were working outside, on their own, with an appointment list and dealing with a queue of people.

“The guards aren’t actually able to do their job of guarding the door because they’re busy looking up and down checking the names.

“So they’re not keeping their eye on the customers, not keeping an eye on what’s happening outside. They’re not able to do their job.”

He said customers were being made to stand aside while contact was made with somebody inside the office – but the guards could only do that by tapping on the door.

Mr Treen said the system was confusing, frustrating and dangerous. “In effect you’ve got WINZ making the guards carry out reception duties.”

In a statement, Ministry of Social Development associate national commissioner Te Rehia Papesch said it was an important part of security that they knew who was coming into their sites.

“Our security guards are having a conversation with people before they come into our offices to quickly discuss why a person is there, and helps to make sure we don’t admit anyone who might represent a risk to the safety of other clients or our staff.

“People will be asked for ID – any form of ID. But we know not everyone carries this at all times so I can reassure people that not having ID won’t mean people can’t come into a Work and Income office.”

Beneficiaries’ advocate Kay Brereton said the ministry had told her 21 people had so far been turned away for not having ID, but she suspected the true number was far higher.