Marshall Islands President Dr Hilda Heine said gender could not be addressed in isolation.

“We must think also of how it intersects with our other challenges and opportunities and develop our policies and approaches with gender equality in mind,” Heine said at the 15th Triennial Conference of Pacific Women in Majuro this week.

“Our gender equality journey calls on Pacific leadership to be intentional, innovative and bold in our responses to the gaps that we see in our efforts.

“We must take risks, create new partnerships, and be unwavering in our commitment to bring about substantive gender equality for the region.”

The triennial is the latest in a series which was first proposed in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, in 1974. Representatives from governments throughout the region are represented at the event which is followed by a meeting of Pacific ministers for women.

“We have come a long way in terms of advancing gender equality and the empowerment of women in the Pacific,” Heine said.

Forces that shape women
“Almost 50 years ago in 1975, 80 women from across the Pacific convened in Suva to talk about forces that shape women in society. ”

The initial meeting of 80 women identified family, culture and traditions, religion, education, media, law and politics as thematic areas which deserved attention and discussion.

Heine challenged Pacific women to extend their role as mothers who nurture and weave society towards nation building.

“A mother helps to nurture and weaves the society, therefore building a nation. That is our role. That is what we do. It is in our DNA,” Heine said.

“Current women leaders stand on the shoulders of those women who came before us, many had no clue about the PPA or what feminism is all about; yet their roles called for them to be involved and to push the boundaries; similarly, it is the responsibility of current women leaders to nurture and to mentor the next generation of women leaders, the leaders of tomorrow.”

Engage men and boys
A study across 31 countries has found that 60 percent of males aged 16-24 years believe that women’s equality discriminates against men.

“This finding is troubling and while the study did not include countries in the Pacific, it is important we take note of it and continue to look at ways to better engage men and boys in gender equality efforts in our part of the world,” Pacific Community’s Miles Young said.

Young said men and boys must be involved on a journey of understanding that gender equality benefited everyone.

“Noting the continuing relatively low representation of women across our national parliaments and at the highest levels of decision-making in the private sector, there may be an opportunity this week to discuss revitalising the conversation around affirmative action — or what some term temporary special measures,” he said.

He noted the presence of Tuvalu Prime Minister, Feleti Teo, Marshallese Women’s Minister, Jess Gasper, and United Nations Women Senior Adviser, Asger Rhyl, and “the many other men who are committed to gender equality”.

“There may be an opportunity for discussions around how to more effectively engage men and boys in progressing gender equality,” Young said.

Women make up 8.8 percent of parliamentarians (54 MPs) in the Pacific, up from 4.7 per cent (26 MPs) in 2013.

Young said the Pacific Community stood ready to collaborate with women representatives and development partners to support decisions and the outcomes of the meeting.

“This commitment reflects the highest priority which SPC attaches to supporting gender equality in the region.”

Netani Rika is an award-winning Fiji journalist with 30 years of experience in Pacific regional writing. The joint owner of Islands Business magazine he is communications manager of the Pacific Conference of Churches and is in Majuro, Marshall Islands, covering the 15th Triennial Conference of Pacific Women.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Generally, more people die in winter. Not surprising, though some years have significantly more deaths than others, and the timing of ‘peak death’ each year varies between the wintery months. These charts show the deaths, determined from weekly data, of people named Smith, New Zealand’s most common surname last century.

The numbers shown are nine-week moving totals, meaning that for the last week of July the data runs from the beginning of July to the end of August. The next datapoint drops the first week of July, and includes the first week of September. (This method addresses the randomness of death, and the randomness associated with the Smith sample.)

Secular Trend?

It is somewhat surprising that the numbers of deaths in 1973 were not much higher than in 1950. The population of New Zealand in 1973 was 3.0 million; in 1950 it was 1.9 million. More people should mean more deaths. But the age structures were quite different. In 1950, there were relatively many older people – thanks to the 1870 to 1895 baby boom. In 1973, there were fewer older men thanks to both World War One, and to the deceleration in birth numbers from the 1890s. With the partial exception of the early 1920s, that reduced birth rate lasted from around 1900 to 1945; though there was variation, with say the early 1940s having many more births than the early 1930s.

But, what goes around comes around. There was another baby boom from 1945 to 1975; a boom that is only just starting, in the 2020s, to markedly influence death tallies. So, as annual death numbers have been only on a slow incline in the lifetimes of those alive today, annual death numbers are set to increase dramatically. Just as individuals die, so do generations. And big generations die bigly.

(We also note that, in the 1940s and 1950s, infant mortality was much higher in New Zealand than in the 1970s.)

Mortality Peaks

The higher peaks in these charts can be attributed to influenza outbreaks. In addition, the winter seasonal highs are linked to the set of viruses – including coronaviruses – which we collectively know as the ‘common cold’.

Superficially, these charts suggest that ‘the flu’ and ‘the common cold’ are New Zealand’s grimmest reapers; are, together, New Zealand’s biggest public health nuisance. Further, the peaks in these charts seem to be getting higher relative to the troughs in the more recent data. Should this be a matter of concern? Didn’t we, by the 1970s, reach a state of hubris about infectious diseases?

Old Age

Death and taxes are (allegedly) the two principal certainties of life. If we don’t die of one thing, we die of something else. So, an increase of deaths triggered by ‘minor’ respiratory viruses can be explained, mainly, by a relative decrease in deaths from other causes such as heart disease and cancer.

And there may be more to it than that. The seasonal circulation of non-novel respiratory viruses may represent a kind of natural vaccination programme. So, at least for otherwise healthy working-age (and younger) people, the presence of these viruses in our temperate ecosystems may be contributing to our increased longevity. Less smoking and sugar, combined with more (not less) exposure to respiratory viruses, may be the essence of why life expectancies have risen in recent decades.

If so, then, the presence of highly seasonalised death patterns may represent a collective solution rather than a collective problem. On balance, influenza may be our friend, not our enemy. It may determine the timing of death in old-age rather than be a significant cause of premature death.

(Tactfully, Queen Elizabeth’s death certificate in 2022 simply attributed her death to ‘old age’. Old Age is a real thing, and not an expression of casual ageism. Indeed, ‘old age’ was the most important and truthful part of her death story; though, as is usual, a single attribution is not the whole story of a person’s death.)

Dry Tinder

Outbreaks of influenza (and other respiratory) viruses work like forest fires. Thus, after years with relatively few winter seasonal deaths, there is a build-up of ‘fuel’ meaning that there will soon be a year or two of higher numbers of seasonal deaths. Followed by years of below-average winter deaths. This is a normal pattern. When there is a large build-up of people of advanced age, there will be more deaths from old age. That’s the normal cycle of life. How do people die of old age? More often than not, such deaths are triggered by a seasonal infection.The aim of public health policy is to maximise the numbers of people who die of old age; minimising the numbers who die prematurely.

These charts, to a large extent, represent deaths due to old age. They also indicate years of more virulent strains of influenza.

The Charts

In the purple 1946-1955 chart, we see 1950 and 1953 as the years of elevated winter deaths, suggesting more dangerous influenza strains. We also notice secondary death peaks in late spring, early summer. In 1949 and 1952 these secondary peaks were higher than the primary winter peak for that year. Presumably, the end of the year is a time when people circulate more; and there will be more vulnerable people if the winter death tally was unusually low.

Looking at the red 1955-1964 chart we see 1956 looking much like 1950, suggesting two low-mortality years would be followed by a higher mortality year, presumably the ‘dry tinder’ effect.

1957 and 1958 were the years of the ‘Asian Flu’ pandemic (a novel strain of influenza), and it shows in the New Zealand data for both years; higher death tallies in years which would otherwise have had significantly fewer deaths. Many of these additional deaths will be of people who would otherwise have lived a few years longer. (Unlike the extremely lethal 1918 strain, most non-elderly people with good general health seem to have weathered this pandemic OK.)

As is normal after a respiratory pandemic (and this is certainly true in Eastern Europe after Covid19, where public health measures substantially subsided in the latter part of 2020), the death tallies for the next couple of years (1959, 1960) is significantly down. 1961 and 1964 were higher winter mortality years, as per the three-year pattern. (1963 had a sharp mortality peak, probably a nasty flu strain, followed by unusually low spring mortality.)

Looking at the blue 1964-1973 chart, 1968 to 1970 reflects the ‘Hong Kong Flu’ pandemic. Whereas the 1957 influenza strain was first reported around January of 1957, the 1968 pandemic strain was first reported in the middle of that year. There was no sign of it in New Zealand in 1968, or in early 1969. Then, in mid-1969, with a mix of ‘dry tinder’ and a lethal influenza strain, there was a longer than usual mortality peak. Then, after a short pause, the pandemic really hit in December, and lasted until August 1970. Like the 1918 pandemic influenza peak, and some of the Covid19 peaks, this was a summer shock.

1971 and 1972 were also high mortality years, suggesting that many who died from influenza in the early months of 1970 had been of working age rather than old age. There were still many frail old people in the population after 1970; people born during the first baby-boom era.

By 1973, we start to get the impact of diminishing relative numbers of older people; a combination of Word War and falling birth rates around the year 1900.

Prognostication

These charts show pandemic and substantial epidemic influenza outbreaks in New Zealand. And they show how ‘old age’ deaths follow a seasonal pattern; commonly triggered by a respiratory virus which would be weathered by the vast majority of people who did not have the characteristics of old age. These viruses are part of the wider ecosystem of which humans are very much a part. Further, the ecosystem of seasonal viruses is maintained by periodic appearances of virulent novel viruses.

There is no reason to believe that life expectancies could be raised by taking public health measures to eliminate influenza and ‘cold’ viruses. Rather, these viruses fine-tune our immune systems, and without that fine-tuning, average life-expectancy would probably fall. Indeed, one cannot imagine the possibility of healthy populations in the crowded metropolises of the world without regular exposures to non-lethal respiratory viruses; exposures tantamount to natural vaccination.

Note

From 1974, not all historical deaths can be accessed online. The rule is that, for today (13 February 2024), only deaths of people born on or before 13 February 1944 will be accessible. This means that 1974 data will not be comparable with 1973 data, because it will miss about a half of infant deaths. We should also note, however, that by 1974 infant mortality rates were substantially lower than they were in the 1940s and 1950s; meaning that late 1970s’ Smith data will remain broadly comparable. A substantial majority of the ‘Smithometer’ Smiths after 1973 will be older people.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

“Grandma, can I say I’m ‘afakasi?”

I’m in the kitchen of my grandmother’s home on the North Shore, preparing for a video journalism piece on the Tongan tau’olunga.

“No, you’re palagi”, she says quietly, turning to fill up the kettle for a cup of tea.

“You don’t speak Tongan.”

She’s right, and it’s a blunt truth I’ve struggled with as I’ve tried to reconnect with my culture as an adult.

It’s a truth that makes me feel like I need to justify my Tongan-ness, and almost stopped me telling people my cultural heritage, or even applying for my current job.

But, it’s there, deep down.

Statistics NZ 2018 figures show just 40 percent of New Zealand-born Tongans can speak the language, that figure dwindling from 56 percent in 2006.

Hearing stories of my history, I can see where my own family has leaned away from some of their Tongan roots and done things the “palagi way” to access opportunities and get ahead.

​Back in the day

My grandmother, ‘Alieta Strong was born on 6th January 1934. Her mother was Louveve Tohi and she was the 6th child of 10 children. Her father was Robert Hurrell.

As a young woman, she made a vow that she would either marry a palagi or be a nun. Luckily for us grandchildren, she caught the eye of Michael Strong who was the manager at her work in Nuku’alofa, and they were married in St Paul’s Church in 1955.

I don’t mean any disrespect, but I’m not entirely sure if it was a love match. They had three children before moving to New Zealand in 1965, to a one-bedroom bach in Torbay.

My father, Gordon, remembers being the only dark-skinned boy at Torbay school when he arrived at the age of 9.

To settle into their new country, he and his siblings were only allowed to speak English at home, and only remembers a few words of Tongan now.

This attitude was still there in my youth, after many requests to learn the language or Tongan weaving and handicrafts, they were abandoned after first attempts.

My grandmother would make beautiful woven bags and hats to sell at the markets, using her own earnings to eventually purchase a car in New Zealand.

Childhood memories
My best memories of Tongan culture stem from my grandmother, and her home near Waiake beach, where she died in 2011.

She stayed connected to our family in the islands, going back to visit every year or so, and would often be picking someone up from the airport, and there always seemed to be a relative staying whenever we visited.

As a child, I remember when Telecom would do their special prices to call the islands, and Grandma would go through her black book, filled with her neat, precise handwriting.

She’d be on the phone for hours.

We’d pick up the phone downstairs and hear her and an Auntie gossiping away, followed by, “Oi! Get off the phone, you lot!” and we’d run away giggling.

Every January for her birthday we had an umu with a big puaka tunu on a spit roast.

There would be music and dancing and so much laughter.

Aunties would kiss my cheeks and uncles would bite my ear.

I’d scurry off with my cousins and we’d try to figure out how we were related, then give up and go running off to find more food or scab $2 from one of the rich uncles.

My Tongan memories are filled with music and colour, family, and food.

Pictures of my Grandma always showed her dressed beautifully, often with a grandchild in her arms, surrounded by family.

Present day
​Our household’s best effort for Tongan Language Week goes to my partner, who is an Englishman and doesn’t speak a lick of Tongan.

“Malo peto Khalia,” he says in a text, proudly repeating it when I walk in the door after a morning spent reading the news on 531pi, “malo peto”.

Although my nine-year-old chickened out of saying “Malo e lelei” in his class zoom, I can’t force him without leading by example, so I’ve signed up for online Tongan classes. They start in a few weeks with the Pasifika Education Centre.

As an adult, it is with great regret that I didn’t make more effort to learn the language, and converse with my Grandma in her mother tongue.

I am more familiar with words in Samoan and Te Reo, so the Tongan language seems more interrupted and punctuated than other flowing, vowel-heavy Pacific languages.

Being just under a quarter Tongan, I can pass for a regular Kiwi, and am aware of the privilege this has afforded me, but looking palagi doesn’t cancel out DNA.

So, I’d encourage my New Zealand-born non-speakers out there, it’s on you now. Speak to your aunties and cousins, hear their stories.

Tell them it’s OK to speak their island language around you. Sign up for some classes or learn some words or songs.

You can’t judge someone for where they are in their language journey, because everyone starts at different places, but the rest is up to you.

‘Ofa atu.

• In memory of my dear Grandma, Alieta Strong.
  

Republished from Pacific Media Network with the permission of the author.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

The documentary Loimata, The Sweetest Tears has won the Grand Prix du Jury at Tahiti’s FIFO (Festival International du Film Documentaire Océanien).

Produced and written by senior lecturer in communication studies Jim Marbrook at Auckland University of Technology and his sister Anna Marbrook (who directed the film), it debuted at Whānau Mārama: New Zealand International Film Festival 2020, where it received outstanding reviews and box office sell-outs.

The documentary also made the stuff.co.nz top 10 films of 2020 list. AUT students formed part of the crew for some of the Auckland portions of the shoot.

At the prizegiving ceremony, jury member Julia Overton, a leading figure in Australian film and television, described Loimata as “a film that was really well directed . . . on an
important subject: childhood trauma”.

She added: “Our congratulations to the whole team who presented this family’s story with so much compassion.”

Jury member Doc Edge director Alex Lee said: “The film’s narrative is superbly told, giving us a personal connection with the subject, Ema. We are taken into her world where she confronts issues of culture, family, the tradition of wayfaring, sexual abuse, identity, life and death.

“While her mortality is urgent and pressing, the film enables us to pause and reflect as Ema navigates these issue. This is an excellent example of skilled filmmaking and a feature-length theatrical Pasifika documentary which the world needs to view, indicative of the treasure trove of content of our region rarely seen and funded internationally.”

Healing pathway
Director/producer Anna Marbrook said: “We are so thrilled and honoured to be among such an amazing selection of films in competition. This award is a tribute to the protagonist of the film Lilo Ema Siope and her dedication in forging a healing pathway for her extraordinary family – a pathway deeply rooted in her culture, history and philosophy.

“Tahiti is hugely significant in voyaging kaupapa so to win an award there dignifies both our film and Ema’s legacy as a voyaging captain and waka builder.”

Producer Jim Marbrook said: “This is another vital stepping stone that helps us take our film out into the world and also deeper into the Pacific region. We set out to make a documentary that was both cinematic and intimate and the reactions to the screenings and this prize have vindicated our creative choices.

“It was a complex movie to produce because the material was so sensitive.”

Loimata had its television debut on Waitangi Day on Māori Television and is available to watch on their on demand website for the next two months.

Loimata, The Sweetest Tears takes the viewer on an emotional healing journey with extraordinary ocean-going waka captain, Lilo Ema Siope.

The film is an intimate exploration of a family shattered by shame working courageously to liberate themselves from the shackles of the past. A journey of courage, tears, laughter and above all, unconditional love.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Tonight’s historic first vote on abortion laws will inevitably disappoint many advocates of reform. This is because of the watered-down proposals put forward by the Government, and the politicking that has accompanied the legislation – especially New Zealand First’s insistence on seeking a referendum. 

Of course, abortion law reform has been inevitable for some time, and the nature of the issue means it was always going to be complicated. Politicians have been avoiding the reform question for decades, while a public consensus has continued to build in favour of liberalisation. The public are generally more progressive on abortion than the politicians, who continue to risk only moderate change for fear of alienating more conservative voters.

That’s why, even over the last year, the Government’s promises of reform continued to be stalled as Labour attempted to negotiate a compromise package of reform that would keep their New Zealand First colleagues happy. The results of this process, as well as all the overall politicking around it, are nicely laid out today in Thomas Coughlan’s article, Abortion bill heads to Parliament: What’s changing and when.

Reform success looks likely

It is clear that the more moderate legislation planned by the Labour-led Government has been designed so as not to buy too much of a fight or mean it will struggle to get passed. Hence, early signs are that the first reading tonight will very easily get the numbers. Henry Cooke and Thomas Coughlan are projecting, at this stage, 73 votes for and 26 against – see: Abortion vote will sail through with or without NZ First, according to Stuff survey.

Aside from the mysterious New Zealand First orientation to the bill, the stances of other parties’ MPs are becoming clearer: “All 8 Green MPs have said they will support it, while 32 of Labour’s 46 MPs have said they will definitely back it. Four more say they’d be likely to support it. National is slightly more divided with 17 of its 55 MPs saying they will definitely back it, with just 7 saying they will definitely oppose it. Ten say they’re not yet sure how they’ll vote. Act leader David Seymour and independent MP Jami-Lee Ross have both said they back the Bill.”

And for more on how a number of conservatives, including the National Party leader, seem to be on board for at least the first reading of the legislation, see Henry Cooke and Thomas Coughlan’s Simon Bridges will vote for abortion bill at first reading but wants more safeguards.

Bridges’ own position seems to have become more liberal lately, as this article reports that he now supports “the changes to the law for abortions in the first 20 weeks”, with him saying “the position pre-20 weeks of gestation is one where law and practice should match, they haven’t, so I accept that’s the right decision” – which is a turnaround from his position last year in which he insisted that the current rules don’t need fixing.

The same article delves into the positions of some of the more socially conservative Labour MPs, and also finds increasing support for change. For example, “Aupito William Sio, Peeni Henare, and Kris Faafoi all said that they were ‘leaning’ to or ‘probably’ voting yes. None opposed the bill.” Similarly, “Several MPs who voted against the End of Life Choice Bill on euthanasia were supportive, such as Health Minister David Clark and backbencher Kiri Allan. Some members, like Maori caucus co-chair Meka Whaitiri, said they would vote for the bill at its first reading, but would not commit to voting the bill any further.”

But there will still be some Labour MPs who vote against it, and are not willing to speak publicly about their stance. For example, the article reports: “Nanaia Mahuta refused to say how she would vote, simply describing it as a conscience issue.”

The Government’s conservative reform

Despite some degree of positivity that politicians are finally catching up with the broader public mood in favour of increased liberalisation, the details of the Government’s reform are finding less favour with many advocates of reform.

After all, the Government bill really amounts to only partial-decriminalisation instead of full decriminalisation of abortion. This won’t satisfy those who believe that abortion should fundamentally come down to a “woman’s right to choose”. Instead of going along with that demand and principle, Justice Minister Andrew Little has very determinedly decided that it’s a woman’s right to choose up until 20 weeks of pregnancy, but women lose the right after that, by which it essentially remains a criminal issue rather than a health issue.

I wrote about the details of this issue in a previous column, earlier in the year – see: Abortion reform in question. This pointed to an array of health professionals and reform advocates wanting a more progressive result than the Government was looking to deliver.

And it has come to pass that the Government has gone with a watered-down and relatively conservative option for moderate reform. This has caused some to complain that Labour have let the reform movement down, as they have on other important issues. For example, the No Right Turn blogger says it’s “another example of Labour chickening out. They promised to listen to medical professionals, and they haven’t. While a technical delivery on their promise, its a substantive failure” – see: Labour chickens out on abortion.

Here’s the main point: “Health professionals were crystal clear in supporting complete decriminalisation. But instead of that, Labour has taken the most conservative option, then made it worse, imposing a test for women to access an abortion after 20 weeks. Such abortions are almost always performed for medical reasons, and so should be a health issue, but instead Labour is going to make women continue to endure the wagging finger of society if they need proper medical care.”

The blogger argues that Labour MPs need to push amendments to make the legislation more radical, but fears they will “refuse to in order to avoid upsetting their bigot rump and their conservative coalition partner.”

RNZ has published one anonymous opinion piece on the issue, which criticises the reform bill for retaining much of the status quo for pregnancies beyond the 20-week mark, saying: “The proposed bill is not much better. It sends the message that you may know what’s best for yourself up to 19 weeks, six days, 23 hours and 59 minutes. Once the clock ticks over at midnight, boom, a doctor suddenly becomes the expert on your life. How can a country that trusted women enough to allow us to vote, not trust us to know our own situations?” – see: Abortion is a medical necessity, reform is needed.

According to this writer, “The proposed bill has been called a “mixed bag”. To be blunt, it’s a bit of a cop-out. Sure, the government took a turn in the right direction by making it a health issue and proposed some steps to ensure better access to abortions. But it does not go far enough.” They urge the Government to go further, and to use this moment to create a legacy rather than just another compromise fix.

Similarly, leftwing commentator Gordon Campbell is disappointed that the reform falls so far short of what has been required for modernisation: “Abortion is to be medicalised, rather than criminalised. That’s progress, I guess. If that sounds grudging… it is. Undoubtedly, the proposed law will be better than the 1977 legislation it replaces. Yet surely, you’d hope there would be progress, 42 years down the track” – see: On reforming the abortion laws.

Campbell doesn’t believe that abortion control should simply be converted from being a criminal issue to a medical one: “there is no objective need for the level of medicalisation envisaged by the current Bill. The message being: the ultimate control of women’s reproductive choices is being handed over from the Police to doctors. That’s supposed to be counted as progress.”

And if the issue is a simple health one then why, Campbell asks, isn’t it being treated like this by the Government and Opposition: “If abortion really is just a medical procedure, then the Health Minister should be owning it, and promoting it as part of the government’s health programme. That’s what a grown-up country would do.” He argues against the vote being a conscience one.

Campbell also makes the case that the legislation is entirely backward in assuming that abortion has to be a “medicalised procedure enacted by a doctor”, when the trend – especially in other parts of the world – is towards the use of chemical abortifacients: “they offer a safer, less invasive means of abortion than surgical means. It is a process that can be supervised by a nurse.”

Here’s Campbell’s main problem: “In other European countries, the two pills involved are moving towards being available as an over-the-counter abortifacient. The reforms being proposed in New Zealand do not recognize this trend. For the foreseeable – and by that I mean potentially for decades to come – the women who import such drugs and/or those people who help them to access such drugs will continue to be prosecuted under the Crimes Act.”

Referendum debates

The law reform itself has been overshadowed in recent days by New Zealand First’s desire to make reform contingent on a public referendum – see Jenna Lynch’s Justice Minister Andrew Little caught off guard as New Zealand First hints at abortion referendum.

It seems that in the months of negotiations between Andrew Little and New Zealand First’s Tracey Martin, the traditional stance of her party in favour of referendums on moral issues like abortion never arose. But then in NZ First’s caucus meeting this week, MPs pushed back, despite – or perhaps, because – Martin had said publicly the same day that no referendum was necessary.

According to Henry Cooke: “It’s understood NZ First members have been giving the party some grief about the fact it is demanding a referendum on euthanasia but not abortion” – see: Winston Peters pulls rug out from under Andrew Little – again.

Cooke gives his view: “Little has every right to be furious with this blindside from NZ First, even if he can’t quite say it. He’s already softened the bill to keep NZ First happy, shrinking the number of weeks that an abortion can be accessed without a statutory test. But he shouldn’t be surprised. Peters has used the Parliamentary process to have several bites of the same cherry before, and has also humiliated Little in the past over three strikes. At the end of the day these people are from different parties and will be fighting over the same voters in about a year’s time.”

Of course, New Zealand First wanting a referendum doesn’t necessarily impact on the legislation at all. The party has already signed off on the bill being introduced to Parliament tonight. It simply means that the party is likely to put up an amendment to the bill to include a referendum. This wouldn’t happen in practice until after the second vote on the bill, and it’s very unlikely to be successful. The big question is whether New Zealand First MPs will vote for the bill without a referendum being put in place.

This is all best dealt with in Claire Trevett’s column, NZ First abortion referendum ploy leaves sour taste (paywalled). She argues that no one should be surprised that Winston Peters would want a referendum: “It was not that long ago both NZ First’s leader Winston Peters and Martin herself had provided statements setting out the party’s position that abortion was for a referendum. Given that, if it was not raised in caucus perhaps Martin should have raised it herself to ensure it would not become a stumbling block later.”

Trevett suggests that the re-positioning by New Zealand First could simply be one of empty strategy: “NZ First could simply be posturing to allow Peters to say the party had tried to stick to its policy but was thwarted by others”.

So, who’s to blame for the miscommunication and incorrect assumptions about New Zealand First’s policy on referendums? Mike Hosking points the finger at both Tracey Martin and Andrew Little – see: Winston Peters again pulls the wool over Labour’s eyes on abortion referendum.

And today Winston Peters has struck back, accusing Andrew Little of bad faith and blindsiding New Zealand First – see: Winston Peters takes aim at Labour over abortion law reform.

There is now some very interesting discussion going on about the role of referendums in determining law. For the best of these, see Sam Sachdeva’s Why Winston Peters is wrong on referendums, and today’s editorial in The Press: Abortion debate: let the politicians decide.

Finally, for satire on these issues, going back a long way, see my blog post, Cartoons about abortion law reform in New Zealand.