Since 2005 Ross has established business interests in aqua culture and fisheries development – from Morocco to Syria and Papua New Guinea. In 2015 Ross was prime speaker on sustainable fisheries as guest of the Moroccan government at CRANZ Montana ‘Sustainable Resources: Africa’ conference, and an official guest at the 2017 forum.

In 2020 Ross commenced negotiations with Russian Direct Investment Fund to secure agency of SPUTNIK V COVID vaccine for supply to New Zealand via the NZ registered company; COVAX NZR Ltd.

Since 2009 Ross has been trustee and manager of Russian owned forestry and property assets in New Zealand.

A former Member of Parliament (1987–1996) and Member and the Executive Council of New Zealand, Ross was Under Secretary (junior minister) Agriculture & Forestry; Cabinet Committee Industry & Commerce & Chair Select Committee Fisheries.

Ross Meurant was a Member of Parliament for nine years. Prior to entering parliament he was a commissioned officer in the NZ police. Subsequent to parliament, he owned equestrian facilities; was elected to local government as a councillor; consulted to several major fishing companies, was engaged by parliamentary services as adviser to Rt. Hon Winston Peters and emerged as a key figure in the Scampi Affair, which falsely alleged political corruption.

From 2004 he has lived and worked in Zimbabwe, Russia, Czech Republic and the Balkans. From 2007 he extended his business to Morocco, Syria and U.A.E.

Ross has a bachelor degree in politics and management, a master’s degree in economics, statistics, law and policy and C.O.P’s in law.

Note from Sue Reyland (Founder/Administrator)

Ross will run articles on our Website

I have allocated Ross a Separate Page for your reference. Please find list of Pages

you can browse on our Website

Ross has a wealth of knowledge which will be an asset to our website & followers

Thank You Ross for approaching the team your articles will be most appreciated


15th March 2022

Labels: crimeGangsPolicing reformRoss Meurant

Problem with gangs these days – is quite different to Red Squad days.

Red Squad was not a weapon only for use against the 81 Protest movement.  It was a weapon, in the words of former Auckland police assistant commissioner Graham Perry, to:

“Make Auckland safe enough for my mother to walk down Queen Street at mid-night.”

This was the Graham Perry who was my commanding officer when I was a detective on Regional Crime Squad – which operated to a similar code.

Perry was also the Officer Command of AOS when I was on that squad.

By the time I was a commissioned officer, I had very much embraced the ethos of Perry and my former CIB bosses John Hughes and Bruce Hutton

“We (the police) run this town.”


The problem? 


In my day, profile cops like Hughes and Hutton and Perry – and later me – did have to deal with violence and threats.

Examples: As an inspector I was once threated at point blank range with sawn off shot gun and on another occasion shot with a sawn off from 20 meters – he missed – but was charged with attempted murder of me.

But Police in my days – were very much protected.

By that I mean, their places of residence and schools of their children, were not accessible.

Violence was directed against us as individuals – and not our families.

Well – one exception I recall- a bomb designed for the home of John Hughes was exploded on the doorstep of some poor fellow with the same name as the then, detective sergeant John Hughes.

These days, internet alone allows even the ineptest amongst us, to track down someone they don’t like.

A detective sergeant or inspector level does place such officers in leadership situations where animosity becomes personal and not just aimed at the police per se.

It takes a special kind of cop to have the ability and fortitude to confront the gangs and crime networks and an even higher level of commitment and courage, to be a leader of a squad tracking serious crime and gangs.

This ease at which a cop’s family can be tracked today, places leaders of squads like I was on – Region Crime; Drug Squad, AOS, Red Squad and police criminal intelligence units, at high risk – because they are identified either by media or appearance in Court – and can then be “tracked”.

Today I would put international drug cartel investigator, detective inspector John Sowter – a former constable on my section late 1980ies, in today’s category of high risk and at an even higher level of, courage. 

He has my respect.


The solution?   Arm Police 24/7?

In a recent article, Arm the Police 24/7 (1) I made a case to arm police 24/7.  In reality, all front-line police are armed – they all carry guns in a cabinet in the boot of their patrol vehicles.

However, scampering to grab a firearm from the boot may well have been the time lapse which contributed to the killing of constable Matthew Hunt. (2)

In the same article (3) I did however remind readers that in over 40 cases of police shooting people, none of these cases were ever reviewed before a proper Court of Law – and that all have been sanitised in camera (that is the internal police review committee IPCA, out of public sight with no cross examination of witnesses by independent lawyers), with no prosecutions of police – even for manslaughter.

How the accidental shooting of courier driver Halatau Naitoko (4) was less a case of manslaughter than some bloke accidentally shooting his mate while deer stalking, in my view exposes a chronic flaw in our legal system, denying the public the hand brake on police conduct they deserve, and which would be imposed by proper open court examination.

But whereas I do consider that it is now time to arm police 24/7, this alone is not the solution.

Because the problem I identify, is the danger to the families of profile police in the front line against gangs and organised crime.


Other solutions?

If I was commissioner of police at this time, what would I do to bring to heel gangs which ride noise violating motorcycles with disregard for the laws and with apparent impunity and/or drug importers with links to serious international criminal organisations.

For a start, less time issuing infringement tickets in Remuera, Fendalton and Karori to white folk whom police know, will pay their fines and won’t get out of the vehicle and smash them. 

Many will regard the attention to minor traffic violations (lowering speed limits is saving lives – what demonstrable nonsense) while having minimal or no presence on (taking one of many examples) the Waikato Auckland expressway same time as a horde of gang members ride rampant and attack motorists, as insulting and behaviour which undermines confidence in the police.

Point? Better utilization of resources and cut whinging about not enough staff.

PS        And dare I say it?   Review the ratio of male female cops – ‘cause at the end of the WOKE rainbow there are physically capable bad arse dudes out there whom most male cops could not handle.

For a start, if I was commissioner of police, I’d form a unit whose members would have total protection from discovery of identification.

Not even would work mates know that a colleague had been transferred to this “special squad”, because recruits to the squad would be required to ostensibly resign and move to a state anonymous – probably a time limit of 2 years on the squad.

Why the secrecy?  Already a number of cops have been convicted of gang association – and it would be a fool who believed that somewhere else in the bowels of the behemoth, there are no more ‘cops’ who would sell their mates for a cash payment.

Therefore, the Special Squad members would have no contact with the world outside the Special Squad.

The Special Squad would be fully equipped – from weapons to protection of identity in courts to the extent they would wear masks in court.

Of course, going down this path makes removal of the IPCA review of police killings, absolutely essential.  For if one is to have a squad of the calibre I suggest, that does not mean they would have the right to act with impunity – above the law.

Any “special squad” as I envisage, would have secrecy of their identities and therefore families, as their weapon of protection – rather than a gung-ho attitude with a firearm.

Outside the Square?

Of course, one could hire in a team of mercenaries.  Americans are well equipped to provide such services: Blackwater for one. (5) [Maybe a Step Too Far?]

Residual Problem?

If the bad guys can’t identify the good guys (Special Squad) then sooner or later the bad guys might focus further up the tree for a target?

In which case, the commissioner might be well reminded of liability in big business?

The Buck Stops at the Top.

Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies & V.I.P. security; currently Honorary Consul for an African state, shareholding director of foreign commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interest.

 This post is a factual chronology of how we have arrived at the door of INEQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW ….  if we don’t face realty we cant fix the problem 

Ross Meurant: IRONY OR TRAGEDY Oct 28th 2021

As the Courts seem to unite in their support for the current Labour government quest for Customary Maori Law to usurp Statutory Law, irony emerges from the dark clouds which gather over the Land of the Long White Cloud.

The irony is; it was not Labour who opened the floodgates which have seen a tsunami of claims. It was National.

Labour now faces increasing hostility and blame for “Maorification” (1) of the country.  Whereas twelve months ago, a few were lone voices, today things have changed.

A torrent of outrage now emerges as people who once were too afraid of being labelled a racist to oppose anything Maori, no longer feel that impediment and openly express their distaste for being force fed Maori through media sponsored by government and their children being force fed a language which many regard as being worthless outside a marae.

As Hon Dr Bassett comments on the Public Interest Journalism Fund (2) established by Labour:

“Stuff received $300,000 to establish a “cultural competency course”. To encourage Maori TV, NZME, Pacific Media, News hub and support partners to take on journalism cadets who are Maori or Pacific, a cool $2.4 million was handed out. NZME that produces the New Zealand Herald got $440,000. One estimate I’ve seen is that 40% of the total beneficence will go to Maori projects.”

The current initiatives by Jacinda’s team to elevate Maori above all other cultures which contribute to the makeup of New Zealand (3), now provide propulsion pushing the political pendulum away from Labour.

A particular point of conflict focuses on some 200 claims by Maori to ownership of the foreshore and seabed.

The irony of the land grab however, by my assessment, falls squarely at the feet of former Prime Minister Rt Hon Sir John Key and his Attorney General Chris Finlayson. 

It was the National government of 2011 which overturned the protection against Maori land grab which had been provided by Prime Minister Helen Clark’s Labour government in 2004 when parliament passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act which deemed the title to be held by the Crown. 

Helen Clark made it clear to the then Chief Justice Sian Elias, following the latter’s speculative commentary about the sanctity of Maori Customary law, that the ultimate law-making body in New Zealand was its sovereign parliament.

Helen Clark’s protection was repealed and replaced by National’s John Key via the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.

Another irony to emerge, is that whereas a growing majority of traditional National party voters begin to resist the current government tsunami of elevating Maori above “the rest” (4) of New Zealand, the power which has been vested in Labour to embark on this “crusade”, falls squarely at the feet of the thousands of traditional Tory voters who abandoned National at the last election.

The fact that hard core traditional National seats across the country (including my former electorate where I had a 4,000 majority) went RED!  That was another tsunami.

I suspect the reason behind most National deserting the fold, was a vote against a pitiful performance by National post John Key and in the run up to the last General Election.       I was one such deserter.

The irony of MMP.

Ostensibly MMP would provide moderation against rule by one Party alone, under the First Past the Post system.

As the mathematician on my Hobson electorate correctly calculated when in 1994 I formed the first political party under MMP (and for several months formed the first coalition since the 1930ies and held the balance of power), (5) only in the most unusual circumstances would MMP ever deliver one Party the power to rule alone under MMP.

The irony is that the system of MMP gifted Jacinda, the power to rule alone.

Yet another irony is that the MMP system, promoted by Rod Donald and supported by Hon Jim Anderton, was grasped by former National Prime Minister Jim Bolger as a policy pledge in 1993 and delivered in time for the 1996 election.

The final irony in this review is that Labour Prime Ministers Rt Hon David Lange and Rt Hon Helen Clark, both rejected claims that the Treaty created a, “partnership between Maori and the Crown” and made it clear the that democratically elected Parliament is the ultimate forum where laws are made.

This irony is compounded by the opinions of Hon Richard Prebble and Hon Dr Michael Bassett; two former senior Labour government Ministers of the Crown; the later also being an esteemed historian academic who consistently speaks out against the trend to impose Maori Customary law above Statutory Law.

Yet, here we have an incumbent Labour government which forces the culture of one ethnic group of many which make up New Zealand, onto other cultures via media outlets which take government funding to promulgate their policies. (6)

The tragedy for Labour would be if the precedent of Austria Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (7) who stepped down after pressure triggered by a corruption scandal in that he used government money to ensure positive coverage in a tabloid newspaper, might be relevant in Labour’s case, or merely irony.

The tragedy for National would be that they fail to step up and state their policy on matters raised herein and ironically wonder why their traditional voter strength has gone to ACT or NZ First.

(4) Ibid

Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies; currently Honorary Consul for an African state, Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interests.


Commissioner Coster’s recent explanation for the exponential and highly visible increase in firearms “incidents”, particularly in West and South Auckland, as being collateral COVID lockdown stress, is in my opinion, “staggering”.

I have previously posted support for Commissioner Coster.  In my view, he was the handbrake police needed on what I discerned as an emerging “Gung Ho” approach to firearm use by police under former Commissioner Mike Bush. (1)

Unequivocally, I stand by my demand that police who shoot people, must have their actions reviewed before a proper court of law and not the IPCA which I have often labelled as being akin to “a boys club” of “back-room justice”, being as it is, completely out of public sight. (2)


This opinion does not mean that I don’t understand the need for police to be armed and to shoot persons – when the legal parameters apply.   And, as it happens, twice I was confronted with this dilemma – oddly enough during the time I was a 24/7-armed front line commissioned officer in the NZ police. (3)

More recently, and to bring the debate back to, “what going on now”, where gun crimes are perpetrated in New Zealand, in July this year on Breaking Views, I penned: Arm Police 24/7 (4)

Times are a changing and, in my view, a strong case can now be made to arm police 24/7.  This policy would of course take time to implement.  Teaching police how to handle possession of a firearm – 24/7 – would be a quantum leap in police training in firearms, from what it is now. 

Labour’s gun confiscation programme missed the target.

In my view, a significant factor in the elevation of gangs and guns, was the failure of Labour’s gun confiscation policy which followed the Christchurch massacres – very much I might add (in my opinion) an ill-considered rapid response via policy to try and fool the populace that, “everything is under control”.

Confiscation of guns was a deliberately designed “distraction” from a major contributing factor precipitating the Christchurch massacres which was, in my view, as a former commissioned officer in charge of Auckland police criminal intelligence section, that the CIS police failed in their mission to correctly evaluate intel. 

Labour’s gun confiscation policy took the guns from the good guys aka hunters, target shooters, gun collectors et al which enabled Labour to boast about “thousands of guns” taken out of circulation.

But Labour’s gun confiscation policy failed to collect the armoury, invariably not registered, or held by persons without gun licenses, but also a much larger cache of illegal weapons.

How did the gangs get their guns?

Who had these weapons?  The same people who have them now.  Gang members and other assorted denizens of dark alleys.

For a start, apropos my comments above, Labour failed to collect the arsenal held by law breakers and instead focused on collecting arms from the law abiding.

Looking at media fotos of arms seized by police in recent raids, I do not see a range of artillery which suggests to me that boat loads of high-grade weapons are being smuggled into New Zealand via maritime expresses.

Most of the gang arsenal appears to be old NZ stock, probably stolen from gun shops and/or farmers’ rifle racks, over time.  Many have been modified i.e., sawn off shot guns and pistol grips of e.g., .22 rifles.

Clearly, the prevalence of fire arm “incidents” which occur on an almost daily basis, putting New Zealanders at risk, is evidence that Labour’s gun confiscation policy has been a total failure.

Collateral damage to Labour also emerged. One should always remember that if you push a button or crank a lever, a consequential reaction will happen.  In this case it was a mass exodus of gun lobby voters to ACT, and David Seymour was on a winner.


Looking at the current situation with the All Blacks, one might say: “Bring Back Buck?”

Looking at the current situation with gang warfare on the rampage, one might say: “Bring Back EGP?”

At the time of the foto: Detective Superintendent Edward Graham Perry GM and AOS icon.
Front row centre. Detective Meurant third from right middle row.
Two dead eyed dick marksmen: Constables Ross Nicol third from right back row
and Bradley Hammonds, front row seated first from left.

Problems solved?


The weaponry described above will no doubt continue to be used by the run of the mill bandits or distraught domestic tragedy participants.

However, if I was a bandit – like I mean a serious bandit, my focus for preferred weapon would be – DRONES.



 Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament; formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies & V.I.P. security; currently Honorary Consul for an African state, Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New Zealand and has international business interests.


By Ross Meurant 14th Jan 2022

Germany’s President Steinmeier, said he felt it was his duty to “call for public debate
over serious questions.” He argued that “there is no democracy without debate.”
Addressing the issue of compulsory vaccination, President Steinmeier said this applied
to times of crisis as well. (1)
In a previous post, Rights Denied, (2) I raised the question of being, shut out of public
In particular I focused on the issue of this Labour/Green government elevating Maori above
all other ethnic communities which make up New Zealand and provided specific examples
of esteemed academics being vilified and blacklisted (‘scuse the pun) from public
discourse. Hon Dr Michael Bassett and Professor Liz Rata – being two of the most profile.
It seemed to me that their rights to challenge (and in fact I suggest, it was their duty as
senior academics), claims by some Maori that the Treaty ensconced a “Partnership”
whereby Maori should rule New Zealand as an equal partner with, The Rest – of us Kiwis,
was deemed unacceptable.
Unacceptable in that these experts had rejected the “WOKE” interpretation of science
which has been embraced by the emerging regime. This WOKE claim I totally debunk in A
Step Too Far (3)
Authoritarian Environment.
But it doesn’t stop there. A penchant of government bureaucracies to deny Kiwis their
right to work unless they accept mandatory vaccination, now also emerges as another
attack on the Rights of New Zealanders.
I am double vaxed and had a boost. I am not anti vax. But I respect the rights of my
fellow countrymen (‘scuse the non-woke gender pro-noun) to say, “NO”.
Furthermore, compulsory vaccination for children, is where I draw the line. Much more
research needs be undertaken and peer reviewed – by competitors in the commercial
bonanza of inventing, manufacturing and supplying vaccines.
I’m closer to 70 than I am to 60 so if bad outcomes from too much vaccines do manifest,
at least I can say – “I’ve had a fair run at life”. But to force upon children, these vaccines
which do not meet testing protocols imposed on other vaccinations which over past
decades have saved us, is another Step Too Far.
Remember Thalidomide? (4)
As I review why some say NO, it seems to me opposition to vaccination stretches from
what I would consider conspiracy theorist stuff – like:
A It’s the plan of a very wealthy global influencer to reduce the population?
To the following:


Concern that we are being sucked in by the avaricious greed of some to make lots
of money by scaring the hell out of the masses who in the main are as ignorant as
to the origins, evolution and extinction of the virus and its mutating cousins, as are
many so-called experts.
To the following:
C Conflicting medical data raising serious concerns among many.
This conundrum reintroduces PLATO’s lament?
“We can forgive children for being afraid of the dark. We cannot forgive adults
for being afraid of the light.”
Put another way:
“If you don’t accept the bad news, you cannot identify the problem.”
Therefore, I take heed of PLATO and review the three paradigms A, B, C, and am
compelled contribute to the debate:
Re Category A: I’m not convinced.
Re Category B: This does attract my attention – especially as I recall National Party
Caucus disagreements – mid nineties – about whether foreign providers were trying to
influence people on Pharmac – with enticement to approve a particular product as
“acceptable” for New Zealand.
Note: This was about the time in history when we all going to die of AIDS – and therefore
should stop having sex – which as I reflect on this “wisdom”, might well have emanated
from propagators of A?
Re category C: I notice that “among many” includes many medical professionals?
Addendum: I do not for one moment suggest either in the nineties or now, that any
Pharmac appointees ever accepted enticements.
What does concern me however, is the trend toward shutting down any and all
challenges to the pathways this Labour/Green government now treads.
Most readers will have by now tired of reading the constant stream of facts and fiction
pertaining to COVID.
As swiftly as an “approved medical professional” comes out with the latest doomsday
predictions, “other non-approved medical professionals” produces EMPERICAL RESEARCH
which may question some of the Establishment’s Protocols and/or clinically expose Facts
Promulgated by Government Appointed Paragons – as flawed!
This in my view, gets to the nub of Rights Denied aka “Shut up ‘cause the Government
knows what it’s doing and its advisors are right.”
During 2020 Dr Simon Thornley whose academic quailfications are braodly similar to those
of Dr Ashley Bloomfield, challenged the Government’s Covid-19 elimination strategy

which put him on a collision course with merging media stars including Professor Michael
Thornley is reported to have said: “They’re trying to shut down alternative views which
have already been proven correct.” At one point he said: “There’s no doubt in my mind
the effects of the virus have been systematically exaggerated at every level.”
The article at Stuff (5) traverses conflicting opinion of Thornley. There were accusations of
“Cherry-picking” data, which in my view might also be applied to journalism.
End result? Michael Baker and his University of Otago colleague Professor Nick Wilson
demeaned Thornley.
Whether Thornley was right or wrong, it is my view that an attack mounted against a
person who dared to question the efficacy and integrity of a government protocol, if not
designed to scare and intimate others, most likely does.
Stifling debate.
At least Thornley wasn’t burned at the stake or had an eye put out as did denizens of
Carcassonne who failed to see the correct path to God.
History tells us however, that no science is so pure that it does not evolve. Therefore, the
more robust the challenges, the sooner a more reasoned outcome will prevail.
Remember Charles Darwin?
The conflicting international medical opinion is too vast for me to fully comprehend – let
alone try to condense for capture in this short post. But I do have the fortitude to say
that in my assessment of the situation:

 As the inability of vaccines to make us immune to the virus was exposed as flawed
science, the implicit if not explicit assurances we had been given were rapidly
 Contemporaneous assurances that being vaccinated does mitigate the impact of
the virus (which ever version one acquires), now flood the market place – yet these
claims cannot be proven.
o For example, consider the claims made by in a NZ Herald
article 13 January 2021 (6) where NSW Sate Premier said, “around half of
those in the state’s intensive care units (ICUs) were vaccinated.”
o The reporter said: “This may be surprising to some but it should not be
taken as evidence the vaccines do not work. In fact, it shows the opposite.”

So here we have a reporter deciding whether the glass is half empty – or half full?
If that’s science for you mate, then I reckon we really do have a Problem at Mill.

Under fear of death descending upon us as mist on an overcast morning, if we did
not wear a mask and sanitise hands and stay at home and social distance when let
out of the cage to get food supplies, now appears to me to have been excessive
floundering in the mist by so-called medical professionals and politicians – who
really didn’t have a bloody clue- but were dead keen on either publicity and/or
keeping their jobs.

 That while government bureaucrats remained fully paid, the backbone of New
Zealand’s economy – that is the small businesses who start a commercial activity by
risking their house (mortgaged to a fair-weather friend aka their bank) and employ
30 per cent of all NZ’s work force who in turn pay tax which in turn funds public
facilities like Health (soon to be gifted to Maori) and represent 25 per cent of GDP –
 It took Rt Hon John Key to come out firing accusing Labour/Green government of
creating a HERMIT STATE – before some of these extreme reactions of panic at the
mill (aka Parliament) were – moderated. Mildly.
 But still, thousands of Kiwis cannot get home from abroad.
 Why the Labour/ Green government has not done as they have in China AND Russia,
and built portable hospitals/MIQs to accommodate elevations in contagion and
have these facilities additional to public hospitals?
o Why has not the disused Military facility at the end of Whangaparāoa
(Orewa) been converted from a police AOS shooting range facility? If the
doomsday predictions are half true, Auckland will need such facilities.

In my view, the public have a right to be heard.
Opinion is not the prerogative of the Prime Minister alone.
This right may manifest in the form of professionals producing empirical research which
challenges government policy.
This right may manifest of the form of new political party.
These rights must prevail and not, as I said in RIGHTS DENIED be under threat of”
“Criminalising comment which challenges government is one option. Pressure on
Facebook etc is another. Either way, it is DEMOCRACY DENIED.” (7)

Returning to the German President, I suggest he set the tone for debate which New
Zealand would do well to embrace, when called on his fellow countrymen and women
to show respect for opinions that differ from their own, and also for “facts and
reason,” which “must be and remain our common currency.” (8)

Ross Meurant, graduate in politics both at university and as a Member of Parliament;
formerly police inspector in charge of Auckland spies & V.I.P. security; currently Honorary
Consul for an African state, Trustee and CEO of Russian owned commercial assets in New
Zealand and has international business interest

(7) Ibid.
(8) Ibid