In the wake of the recent release of labour force data (Household Labour Force Survey, HLFS, Nicola Willis bemoans ‘glass half empty’ view of unemployment figures, RNZ 6 August 2025), 1918-1920 National Party Leader Simon Bridges, has called for economic “stimulus” to rescue in particular the dire Auckland economy. (See Call for government to help Auckland as unemployment rises, RNZ; contrast the Minister of Finance Nicola Willis’s retrospective and ongoing advocation of fiscal suffocation Dangers of Excessive Spending Highlighted, Scoop; both 7 August 2025.)

My focus here is to look at the historical and recent employment rates of older women (aged over 55), and to consider the importance of their spending to the health or otherwise of the New Zealand economy. My reference is the first chart highlighted in Employment in New Zealand – especially of women – at the Age Margins, Evening Report, 7 August 2025.

The chart shows that there is a huge increase in the percentage of older women who meet the official definition of employment. (This generous definition includes wage/salary workers – fulltime or part-time – self-employed workers, active employers, and people working without wages in a family business.) The data reveals a huge increase in the ‘participation rate’ of older women in the labour market.

The age group 60-64 had a particular impetus to retire later, namely the rise in the early 1990s of the age of entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation from age 60 to age 65. But the pattern is essentially the same also for women in their late fifties and in their late sixties.

The appropriate benchmark year is 1987, by time the HLFS was bedded in and before the economic consequences of the financial crash in late 1987. While the high period for employment of older women is 2022 or 2023, when jobs were plentiful, we can be sure that the actual participation rate has not fallen since 2022, and has probably continued to rise. (We can disregard participation rates published in the HLFS; they are based on definitions of unemployment which only realistically apply to men aged 30 to 60. There is much ‘hidden unemployment’ amongst older women.)

For women aged 55-59, we see a rise in labour market activity from 43 percent to 80% in 2018 and 2023. For women aged 60-64, we see a rise in labour market activity from 18 percent to 70% in 2022. (The dip for this early-sixties age group in the late 1980s and early 1990s is unemployment masquerading as ‘retirement’.)

For women aged 65-69, we see a rise in labour market activity from 8 percent to 44% in 2022. For women aged over 70, we see a tenfold rise in labour market activity from 1995 to 2025. (We desperately need a ’70-74′ age category in the published data; this ‘early-seventies’ cohort is likely to now be New Zealand’s fastest growing employment demographic.)

Overall, this truly massive labour force participation of older women in the last thirty years has been a barely noticed social revolution. The increase of employed older women is even more dramatic than these figures look, because New Zealand’s highest birth numbers were in the late 1950s and the early 1960s. These women are now in their sixties, and born with higher life-expectancies than their parents.

It seems unlikely that this increased labour force participation is a result of the rise of feminism in the 1970s; an increased advocacy for paid work was one plank of that feminism. Though feminism may have played a significant but lesser role in this huge social change. It seems far more likely that the main driving force is economic pressure upon households; stresses that have increasingly required all adult household members to be attached to the labour force, rather than the pre-1980s’ emphasis on an individual (typically male) ‘breadwinner’.

The stresses initially hit households hardest in the late 1980s through massive rises in mortgage interest rates, and in the more frequent revision of interest rates by banks during the lifespans of home loans. To that we can add an increased reliance on other forms of personal debt, such as credit cards. The ongoing stresses relate to both the increased precarity of paid work for men and women – meaning women increasingly having to make significant contributions to household budgets – and the failure of hourly wages to keep up with gross domestic product per capita. In order to be able to buy the goods and services which made up our GDP, we needed ever more hours of household labour.

Older households were able to hold out for longer against these pressures, but not forever. Hence, most of the increases of labour force engagement for these households have taken place in the last thirty years.

Older Women’s Spending

What all this means is that, in the 2020s, a critical component of consumer spending is done by older households, and in particular older women. Their spending is a major source of ‘stimulus’ in the 2020s’ economy. It is already apparent that suburban cafes, for example, survive very much with the help of patronage from groups of older women.

By and large, most policymakers worldwide have now forgotten the lessons of the Great Depression of the 1930s. One of the most important lessons was that countries which had inbuilt means to keep incomeless households spending suffered much less in the peak years – the early 1930s – of that Depression. (These countries included the United Kingdom and Sweden; they contrast with France and the United States, which were still in Depression in 1939.)

France in particular could not get out of that Depression. In part because of World War One deaths and injuries, it relied very much on immigrant labour (mainly from North Africa). It also relied on female and male urban labour from people with rural connections. So, when the Depression hit, the redundant workers – having no access to benefit incomes – simply returned to either Africa or to their parents’ small farms.

Most of Aotearoa’s older women cannot emigrate if they lose their incomes. But most of them will not be able to draw on a benefit to offset their lost wages. Some are already receiving New Zealand Superannuation, and that will rise a little as the marginal tax rates on their ‘Super’ will come down. What of those under 65 who lose their incomes, noting that many employed women age 55-64 live in households which pay mortgages or rent? Most will not qualify for an MSD benefit; they will be fully reliant on their partners’ or adult children’s wages. Some, who do qualify for benefits, will face stand-downs of several weeks or months; and time engaging with MSD that would be better spent with their grandchildren or elderly parents.

One particular group of older women is those, mainly in their early sixties, who used to be able to get a ‘non-qualifying spouse Superannuation benefit’, ie if their partners were superannuitant pensioners with minimal other income. (With zero fanfare, one of the first things the Labour Government did, in October 2020, was to cancel these women’s entitlement to what was an important form of transitional income support.) These women, grandmothers in large part, are the ‘breadwinners’ in their senior households. If they lose their jobs (or their ‘roles’ as we are now supposed to say), that means a potentially catastrophic loss of household income. (We should note as an example that the New Zealand Polytechnic sector, currently undergoing significant restructuring and financial downsizing, has a particularly important portfolio of older female employees; many of these workers have substantial institutional memory, keeping their organisations functioning more than many of the younger managers appreciate.)

MSD should be focussed on helping young people to find paid work, and not having their resources logjammed by older women who would have previously had access to income support without red tape.

The Laws of Stimulus

The First Law of Holes, is ‘stop digging’. (We note that a ‘depression’ is, literally, a hole.) Finance Minister Nicola Willis is digging furiously, burying alive suffocating Kiwis.

The first law of stimulus is to stop public-sector retrenchment. That is the main single lesson from the near-forgotten Great Depression. The second law of stimulus is to have rights-based alternative sources of income that individuals of all ages can fall back on. The third law of stimulus is to stop pursuing a monetary policy that jacks-up interest rates; the ‘cost-of-living crisis’ is substantially a ‘cost of jacked-up interest rates’ crisis. (As I have already noted, debt is something that drives more people into the labour force; it’s not just the amount of debt, it’s also the cost of that debt.)

We may note that New Zealand got out of the Great Depression by adopting all three laws of stimulus. And a fourth law, by using the cheap money to embark upon a very successful ‘state housing’ program, New Zealand recovered in 1936 to 1938 with double-digit economic growth and near-zero inflation. Some of those houses, well-built, are worth a fortune now. Fletchers and other capitalists made a fortune, too; this is the kind of stimulus which would meet Simon Bridges’ business-perspective criteria. Homelessness was not acceptable to New Zealanders back then, as it seems to be now. Are we looking at a coming decade of escalating homelessness for older women?

When just about every adult is ‘in the labour force’ – unhidden or hidden – desperately needing income while employment ‘roles’ are in decline, the social stresses cannot be contained forever. Younger people may revolt, turning to the underclass-politics of the street. Older people are more likely to die unseen, as too many did in July 2022 (many denied desperately-needed second-booster vaccines) when the Covid19 pandemic really hit Aotearoa New Zealand.

Do any groups of influential people out there have the imagination and capacity to answer the call for humane economic revival? Or is it a case of those who would can’t, and those who could don’t?

————-

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.

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

Media professionals have been urged to undergo gender sensitisation training to produce more inclusive, accurate and ethical representation of women in the news.

Fiji Women’s Rights Movement executive director Nalini Singh emphasised that such training would help avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes and promote diverse perspectives, ensuring media coverage reflects the realities of all genders.

She made these comments during her keynote address at a panel discussion on “Gender and Media in Fiji and the Pacific” at the 2024 Pacific International Media Conference at the Suva Holiday Inn in Fiji on July 4-6.

In her presentation, Singh highlighted the highest rates of gender violence and other forms of discrimination against women in the region.

She said the Pacific region had, among the highest rates of gender-based violence in the world, with ongoing efforts to provide protection mechanisms and work towards prevention.

She highlighted that women in Fiji and the Pacific carried a disproportionate burden of unpaid care work, spending approximately three times as much time on domestic chores and caregiving as men.

This limits their opportunities for income-generating activities and personal development.

Labour participation low
According to Singh, women’s labour force participation remains low — 34 percent in Samoa and 84 percent in the Solomon Islands. The underemployment of women restricts economic growth and perpetuates income inequality, leaving families with single earners, often males with less financial stability.

She highlighted that women were significantly underrepresented in leadership positions as well. In Fiji, women held only 21 percent of board seats, 11 percent of board chairperson roles, and 30 percent of chief executive officer positions.

Despite numerous commitments from the United Nations and other bodies over past decades, including the Beijing Platform for Action and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Singh pointed out that gender equality remained a distant goal.

The World Economic Forum estimates that closing the overall gender gap will take 131 years, with economic parity taking 169 years and political parity taking 162 years at the current rate of progress.

Singh shared that women were more negatively impacted on by climate change due to limited access to resources and information, adding that media often depicted women as caregivers and community leaders during climate-related disasters, highlighting their increased burdens and risks.

The efforts made by FWRM in addressing sexual harassment in the workplace was also highlighted at the conference, with a major reference to the research and advocacy by the organisation that has contributed to policy changes that include sexual harassment as a cause for disciplinary action under employment regulations.

Singh challenged the conference attendees to prioritise creating safer workplaces for women in media. She urged academics, media organisations, students, and funders to take concrete actions to stop sexual harassment and gender-based violence.

“We must commit to fostering workplaces and online platforms where everyone feels safe and respected.

‘Free from fear’
“Together, we can create environments free from fear and discrimination. Enough is enough,” Singh urged, emphasising the need for collective commitment and action from all stakeholders.

The conference, the first of its kind in 20 years, was organised by The University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme in collaboration with the Pacific Islands News Association and the Asia Pacific Media Network.

It was officially opened by chief guest Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji and the Minister for Trade, Co-operatives, Small and Medium Enterprises and Communications Manoa Kamikamica.

Kamikamica said the Fijian government stood firm in its commitment to safeguarding media freedom, as evidenced by recent strides such as the repeal of restrictive media laws and the revitalisation of the Fiji Media Council.

Papua New Guinea Minister for Communication and Information Technology Timothy Masiu was also present at the official dinner of the conference on July 4.

He said the conference theme “Navigating Challenges and Shaping Futures in Pacific Media Research and Practice” was appropriate and timely.

“If anything, it reminds us all of the critical role that the media continues to play in shaping public discourse and catalysing action on issues affecting our Pacific.”

Launch of PJR
The official dinner included the launch of the 30th anniversary edition of the Pacific Journalism Review (PJR) and launch of the book Waves of Change: Media, Peace, and Development in the Pacific, which is edited by the Associate Professor Shailendra Singh, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad and Dr Amit Sarwal, a former senior lecturer and deputy head of school (research) at USP.

The PJR is the only academic journal in the region that publishes research specifically focused on Pacific media.

The conference was sponsored the US Embassy in Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu, the International Fund for Public Interest Media, the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme, Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, New Zealand Science Media Centre and the Pacific Women Lead – Pacific Community.

With more than 100 attendees from 11 countries, including 50 presenters, the conference provided a platform for discussions on issues and the future.

The core issues that were raised included media freedom, media capacity building through training and financial support, the need for more research in Pacific media, especially in media and gender, and some other core areas, and challenges facing the media sector in the region, especially in the wake of the digital disruption and the covid-19 pandemic.

Ivy Mallam is a final-year student journalist at The University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus. Republished in collaboration with Wansolwara.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Auckland Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson welcomed a large crowd on Suffrage Day yesterday to celebrate at a memorial to mark 130 years of women in Aotearoa New Zealand having the right to vote.

Speakers included Challen Wilson, a National Council of Women member and great granddaughter of Mere Te Tai Mangakāhia; Isabelle Lloydd, winner of the NCW high school speech competition; and Joanna Maskell of Te Rōpū Wāhine Auckland Council’s Women’s Network.

New Zealand made history on 19 September 1893 by becoming the first self-governing country to grant women the right to vote in parliamentary elections.

This great leap forward for gender equality was a result of decades of tireless activism by suffragettes across the country who fought for the women’s right to vote and shaped the future for women across the motu (country).

In Auckland, influential wāhine such as Kate Sheppard, Mary Ann Müller and Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia, among others, led the charge for women’s suffrage.

Auckland Council has encourage people to celebrate the suffragette movement’s enduring legacy with a variety of public art pieces, exhibitions and events that “pay tribute to the fearless advocacy of our suffragettes”, said a statement.

The event took place in Te Hā O Hine Place where the walls are decorated with the iconic Women’s Suffrage Mural by Jan Morrison and Claudia Pond Eyley.

Created in 1993 to mark the centenary of women voting, the mural is made up of 2000 coloured tiles mounted onto the sides of Te Hā O Hine Place stairs as 12 separate mosaic panels in central Auckland.

At Monte Cecelia Park in Hillsborough, is 1001 Spheres, a new piece of public art dedicated to gender equality in New Zealand.

This interactive stainless-steel sculpture references a quote from Kate Sheppard: “We are tired of having a ‘sphere’ doled out to us and of being told that anything outside that sphere is ‘unwomanly’”.

Created by artist Chiara Corbelletto, the sculpture celebrates the contribution of women in all spheres of life and is an expression of infinite possibilities.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Sex

Whoever would have predicted that the definition of ‘male’ and ‘female’ could ever become a matter of contention? My professional life has been in political economy, which includes social science and humanities: philosophy, economics, history, statistics, demography, and geography. Demography in particular, requires a biological definition.

The objective science of sex is simple, and genetic. Males have a Y-sex-chromosome as well as an X-sex-chromosome; females instead have two X-sex-chromosomes. To get around the fact that some people want to play-down this observation, commentators and politicians often refer to sex as ‘biological sex’ or ‘sex assigned at birth’. Some organisations refer to ‘gender’ when they mean ‘sex’. Statistics New Zealand doesn’t have any of these problems; for example, the first set of data in the New Zealand cohort life tables: March 2023 update is simply labelled ‘Estimated births, deaths, net migration by sex‘.

Confusion exists because there is a different concept, ‘gender’, which also uses male-female categorisation. When it is necessary to avoid confusion, a person’s sex may be characterised as their ‘genetic sex’ (or ‘reproductive sex’) rather than their biological sex; this is because ‘gender’ may also have a biological basis, and some people whose gender differs from their sex may gave gained this gender variation at conception, in the womb before birth, or even in the birth process itself.

Gender

Gender differs from sex in that it is subjective. A sense of divergent identity from within may arise from any mix of biological or cultural influences. On the biological side, possible influences include aspects of the species genome other than the Y-chromosome, environmental influences within the mother’s uterus, and the birth process itself (eg caesarean birth versus natural birth). Endocrinological and neurological variation can occur before, during, or after birth. One important driver of this gender variability is most likely the microbiome: the changing bacteria and other microbes which inhabit especially the gut, the brain, and the birth canal.

Unlike sex, a binary concept, gender is a spectral concept. And gender is not fixed for all time, it’s fluid. The microbiome is mutable; cultural memes amplify, deamplify and reamplify over time.

It seems to me that a good way for demographers to document gender is through a scale from one to nine. One through to three could be characterised as ‘female gender’, four-to-six as ‘non-binary gender’, and seven-to-nine as ‘male gender’. So a somewhat ‘macho’ male might be described as ‘male sex, male (9) gender. And some ‘trans’ women might be best described as ‘male sex, female (3) gender. For short, for data-coding purposes, these two example people could be listed as ‘m9’ and ‘m3’. F1 through to f3 would translate to ‘cis-female’ in the jargon now used by many as gender identifiers. The mere use of this new jargon is of itself a cultural self-identifier.

It is important to note that the prefixes ‘cis’ and ‘trans’ do indicate that the gender-diverse community does in fact make the distinction between sex and gender, and therefore does not fully deny the reality of genetic sex; the issue is deemphasis, not denial. The issue that impassions that community seems to be to render the concept of sex as unimportant, even unnecessary. But, in the sciences of biology, demography and epidemiology, sex can never be redundant.

Demography

The ‘bread and butter’ of demography is reproduction, migration and death. In this context, ‘age’ and ‘location’ are the most important statistical characteristics of people.

‘Sex’ is in the next tranche of important demographic variables, because genetic sex is an important determinant of the reproduction of populations. Sex should be an easy identifier, because sex is an objective attribute; a person’s genetic sex is a matter of observation, just as whether a person has died is a matter of observation.

Another second-tranche demographic variable is ‘ethnicity’, although to be objective it needs to be ‘ancestry’, and ancestry is often not fully-known. (Many people not know who both of their biological parents are, let-alone their great grand-parents; some people do not know that they do not know this information.) In early United States censuses, the description of a person as ‘black’ or ‘white’ was regarded as central to their demographic identity as whether they were male or female. There certainly is an argument, nowadays with most people having multiple ethnicities of different proportions, that ethnicity should be treated as a subjective ‘third-tranche’ demographic variable. Likewise, religion. (The counterargument is that people who are substantially of a single ethnicity, or who were born into particular religions, do have life outcomes – maybe health outcomes or culturally-determined food choices – which reflect in part the ethnic genetics or religious faiths of their parents.) The important thing is that persons’ designated ancestries or religions should never become the basis for differences in their democratic rights. Demographic attributes should be kept separate from democratic attributes (with the exception of the designation of a young person as a ‘minor’).

Gender, a subjective attribute, distinct from sex, may nevertheless be important in a number of social studies. From a demographic viewpoint, gender may be classed as a third-tranche variable. It may be an interesting scientific question to compare and contrast the life experiences of genetic females (ie people without a Y-chromosome) who are gender-female, gender male, or gender non-binary. Likewise, the gender-diverse life-outcomes of genetic males.

Demography is a very important, though underappreciated, social science; a sibling discipline to epidemiology, and also to human geography. Optimal public health outcomes depend on good-quality demographic research. (Demography provides the all-important denominators needed to make sense of public health data.) Further, like all social-science disciplines, demography is intrinsically historical. Demography is closely intertwined with the disciplines of economic history and economics.

Identity Documentation

Sex or gender are widely used in identity documents; too widely, perhaps. For important demographic purposes, sex is necessary in birth certificates, death certificates, and documents used for travelling between countries (especially passports, now the basis for statistics of international migration). Demographers need to know the age and sex distributions of countries’ populations to be able to make population projections. (I congratulate Statistics New Zealand for well-crafted questions on sex and gender in the recent 2023 New Zealand census.)

Additionally, some kind of reliable documentation should be available for persons using spaces which are reserved for specific demographic subgroups. (We should note that women should not be too precious about ‘their spaces’. Those of us old enough remember the racially segregated toilets that used to exist in South Africa and parts of the USA; many white women and white men did not like their spaces to be transgressed by black women and men. Nevertheless, there is no argument at present for the removal of remaining reserved spaces.)

Does a person need to declare their sex or gender if, say, buying a flight ticket, or enrolling at an educational establishment? (How do the recipients of this information use it? Do they use it?) Sex may be useful on a document used to determine entry into restricted spaces. It may be worthwhile to have a bespoke identity document – a voluntary document – that helps people who need to inform others of their sex, gender or age.

The gender-diverse community wishes to play down excessive gendering in our administrative lives, and, for the most part, prefers to have access to unisex toilets rather than have to use sex-exclusive facilities. (Ask any parent with a young child of the ‘opposite’ sex about gauntlets they have had to run re public toilets. Unisex toilets, much more common today than last century, represent commonsense progress.) If, when buying an airline ticket, does the airline really want to know a person’s sex or gender? Yes, maybe; knowledge of their passengers’ sexes (but not genders) could help an airline to estimate the take-off weight of an aircraft.

Finally, in this section on documentation, we probably should not be using birth documents as general identity documents. While a passport should refer to birth documentation (which should designate ‘sex’), I see no reason why other identification documents – eg documents used by banks – need such information. Thankfully, we do not require a person’s ‘race’ on a drivers’ licence or an airline ticket.

Cultural Wars I

In noting that ‘gender’ is very much a subjective attribute of people (and not only people), that is not saying  there are no biological aspects to gender. Nevertheless, to use modern parlance, the confrontations about sex and gender which we are seeing at present are taking place very much in the human ‘cultural space’.

I was intrigued to read Bryce Edwards’ The ugly stoking of a culture war in election year(Evening Report and others, 27 march 2023). It’s a good non-partisan piece of writing. I was intrigued to see that an academic source to whom Edwards referred was a lawyer called Thomas Cranmer.

Much of my time this year has been spent in reading about the historical origins of modernity. It turns out that the culture wars of the sixteenth century in Europe – otherwise known as the protestant Reformation and the catholic Counterreformation – represent central events that created the global modernity which (for worse and for better) we now take for granted today.

The first true battles of that culture war took place in Tudor England, in particular in the years 1547 and 1558, during the short reigns of the young King Edward VI and then his older sister Queen Mary. (In the kinds of dramas about the Tudor period seen on television and in the movies, this critical and difficult period is rarely touched on. Instead we see various reruns of the 1530s’ story about Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, and, in the later Tudor period, about the contested lives of Queen Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots.)

A central figure of the mid-sixteenth century cultural war in England was the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. In New Zealand, his role in that cultural war is commemorated through the name of Cranmer Square in Christchurch, alongside that of another protestant martyr, Hugh Latimer, who is commemorated in the same city through Latimer Square. This cultural conflict, ostensibly a war of religion but really about much more, lasted a very long time. (Port Chalmers in Otago is named after Thomas Chalmers, a central figure in the Scottish religious schism in the 1840s.) In my historical judgement, this particularly nasty war only ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement in Belfast, Northern Ireland. If we start with Martin Luther in 1517 and end in 1998, we may call this the 481-years-war.

(And a piece of historical trivia that does foreshadow the events in England from the 1530s to the 1550s. So many of the prominent people in England in those days had the given name ‘Thomas’. This is because it became fashionable from the 1470s and 1480s to undertake pilgrimages to the then magnificent shrine of Thomas Becket, archbishop and martyr, who was killed in 1170 at the behest of King Henry II. See the reference to this in Chris Trotter assesses what happened on Saturday at Auckland’s Albert Park and what it means, interest.co.nz, 27 March 2023. Becket won fame for standing up to his king, speaking for the separation of church and state as institutions of authority. Indeed, a number of the later Thomases also met their ends through displeasing their monarchs. It’s too late to visit the shrine of St Thomas of Canterbury; King Henry VIII looted it to destruction in 1538.)

It is also important to note that the culture war referred to here peaked in Europe in the period from the 1560s to the 1640s; the military component being the ‘Eighty Years War’ between the Spanish Empire and the ‘rebels’ of the Dutch United Provinces (the forerunner of the modern Netherlands), with the last part of the Eighty Years War also being the descent into near-perpetual violence in central Europe known as the Thirty Years War.

While the Reformation is correctly attributed, more than anyone else, to Marty Luther from 1517, the most important figure in the ensuing culture war was Jean Calvin (cis-male), in Geneva, whose principal publication was in 1539 (the second edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion). Calvin’s disciples became evangelists for his more direct and more strident protestant variant of Christianity, becoming a direct and immediate threat to the established (Catholic) Church as well as to the Lutheran reforms. Much of the British ‘intelligentsia’ quickly became attracted to Calvin’s message. But they had to bide their time as King Henry’s administration of the Church in England became very conservative in his last years.

The evangelicals got their chance when the nine-year-old King Edward ascended the throne. They ‘came out’ and basically ran the country. The rhetorical wars commenced and much of the language was inflammatory and belligerent. The Pope who had hitherto been the leader of the Church was now routinely lambasted as the Anti-Christ, the Devil if you will, and Catholics were rhetorically condemned as ‘papists’. (The result was the creation of a climate of rumour whereby the Devil could be anywhere and in any disguise.)

Much of the conservative Establishment bit their tongues and bid their time. Many clerics had been able to go along with King Henry’s sacrilege of the Church’s property (and many of its clergy) so long as the overall doctrine remained substantially unchanged. Others of the Henrician establishment – mainly the ones who would have been seen as ‘progressive’ but who did not naturally take to belligerence – merged into the world of the radicals after 1547. Thomas Cranmer was prominent among this decreasingly ‘moderate’ group. He wrote the new Church prayerbook to fit the new prevailing culture.

Everything changed again when Edward died, aged 15, in 1553. With no male contenders for the throne, the Edwardine radicals tried to install a cousin – Jane Grey – as Queen. But the peasants – the ordinary folk – would have none of that; and for the most part the people were unconcerned about the escalating culture war. They knew very well that the next in line for the throne was Edward’s older half-sister Mary; they wanted their country’s leaders to abide by the rules (of succession), even when those rules were inconvenient. Basically, 1553 was a case of coup and counter-coup. Jane Grey’s key supporters were dispatched by her opponents, and soon enough she was executed too.

Mary was what we might call a ‘cultural conservative’ and she surrounded herself with those former establishment conservatives who had been biding their time. With the ensuing reinstatement of the ‘Heresy Laws’, things heated up, literally. I will say no more, other than to note that Thomas Cranmer (Archbishop of Canterbury) became the most renowned victim of this Marian prelude to the Counterreformation. There were many other evangelicals, artisans as well as intellectuals, who chose to die; rather than rejoin the catholic Church, rather than breaking with what they understood as their direct relationship with God. Passions prevailed over pragmatism.

Queen Mary and the ensuing Archbishop of Canterbury (Reginal Pole) both died on 17 November 1558, victims of a pandemic that had all the hallmarks of a coronavirus much like the Covid19 virus. The culture war in England subsequently defused, under the new Elizabethan administration. That defusal in England was facilitated by the self-exile of culture radicals and counter-radicals to Europe, especially to the lands we now call Belgium. And it was there in the 1560s that the religious massacres in Europe really got underway.

Culture Wars 2

I tell the above story as a cautionary warning about how matters can escalate in a culture war when the participants are intentionally inflammatory, belligerent, provocative, and intolerant of people who see certain issues differently. And for too many of the people who could be debating the issues to be intimidated into silence instead. Inflammatory speech, which overlaps with the contemporary concept of ‘hate-speech’, is a form of violence that can have profound consequences. (In the Nazi context, an important consequence was the Holocaust.) Inflammatory speech includes comments – especially comments about groups of people – that are true, but which are said for the purposes of initiating or exacerbating a cultural conflict.

The principal issue in today’s culture war, as I see it, is the determination of a small group of people to eradicate the demographic concept of sex – of genetic sex, of XY sex – as an identity marker.

The most poignant moment that I saw in the television coverage of the events in Auckland on Saturday (refer to Bryce Edwards and Chris Trotter above) was of an older (though not elderly) woman – probably dismissed by the cultural radicals as a TERF – with a placard which simply read:

• XX = female
• XY = male

Completely and incontestably true. The foundation facts of reproductive biology. And not in any way inflammatory.

Yet this placard-holder was crowded out, disrespectfully, by others a generation-and-a-half younger than her. Few people with access to the news media that most people see or hear have spoken-up to support her message. “Bad things happen when good people remain silent.”

And to those who unknowingly or knowingly aggravate the problems which they claim to be addressing, remember the first law of holes: ‘Stop digging’. Like other wars, culture wars drag on because few protagonists of these conflicts have a vision for what success actually looks like. If you must instigate or perpetuate a culture war, then please at least lay out your vision of your utopia. In particular, how should your cultural enemies live and behave? Should your cultural enemies live?

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.

Political Roundup: The Ugly stoking of a culture war in election year

This weekend saw a showdown between two tribes of contemporary gender politics: those in favour of progressing transgender rights versus women wishing to defend their spaces. It’s a debate with huge passion, outrage and consequences.

The figure at the centre of the clash was the British “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” Posie Parker, aka Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, who attempted to hold a “Let Women Speak” rally at Albert Park in Auckland on Saturday. She was forced offstage by a counter-rally for trans rights and has fled back to the UK.

Saturday’s clash of cultures is a sign of where politics is heading in New Zealand – towards a fully-fledged culture war. This is something normally more associated with American politics – but also increasingly in places like the UK.

The Ugly opportunism of culture wars

There was an element of pantomime on both sides over the last week. Posie Parker thrives on controversy. She might be complaining now about her treatment in New Zealand, but by holding her rally in a public place like Albert Park she was provoking opposition and stoking tensions, hoping to become something of a martyr.

She won. She made global news, fuelling publicity in the UK and US markets where she carries out her main fundraising. She will now be even better equipped to push her particularly toxic form of gender politics.

Likewise, those opposing Parker were rather opportunistic in arguing that she is a fascist and that her beliefs were such a danger to the public that she had to be banned from the country.

They must have known they were giving the previously-unknown visitor huge amounts of free publicity and therefore helping get her views out to a wider audience. As broadcaster Heather du Plessis-Allan argued yesterday, “Parker’s opponents made sure that she was in the news most of the week”, and “They helped her spread her message. They played right into her hands.”

The Greens represent one side of the polarised divide. MP Golriz Ghahraman tweeted on her way to the rally: “So ready to fight N*zis”. Co-leader and Government Minister Marama Davidson put out a video to say that she was “so proud” of the protesters. And obviously wearing her hat of Minister for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence she used the event to declare that only “white cis men” commit violence. Such messages will go down very well amongst the party’s support base, which is increasingly sensitive to the need to make progress on gender issues.

Will culture wars dominate the 2023 general election?

The New Zealand Herald’s Fran O’Sullivan wrote on Saturday that “The ‘culture wars’ are set to be a defining issue in the 2023 election.” And she bemoans the Posie Parker tour dominating politics in a week in which the Treasury and the Reserve Bank confirmed “that New Zealand will tip into a technical recession this year”.

According to O’Sullivan, the “rainbow community leaders went into overdrive” producing “an illustration of how quickly a cultural issue can consume public discourse.”

The implication is that the public is going into an election campaign in which there will be less debate and focus on addressing the cost of living crisis. And last week the Government released a major evaluation of their latest progress in eliminating child poverty – which tragically showed that real progress had been made. This vital issue was completely overshadowed by the Posie Parker visit, providing a warning of what type of issues might dominate the public sphere in the lead-up to the general election.

Who benefits from a heightened focus on cultural issues?

The two parliamentary parties stoking the culture wars are Act and the Greens. Those parties will gain a much higher profile if cultural issues keep rising to the fore. The Greens will pick up middle class supporters whose main focus is on social justice issues, while Act might be able to pick up more anti-woke working class supporters in provincial New Zealand.

Squeezed in the middle are the major parties of Labour and National, who are desperate to stay out of it all, aware that middle New Zealand is less enamoured by such debates and concerns. Labour, especially under new leader Chris Hipkins is trying to shuck off the woke association the party developed under Jacinda Ardern. Likewise, Christopher Luxon is trying to get rid of the reactionary image National sometimes had under Judith Collins.

On the outside is New Zealand First, with Winston Peters trying to get into the culture wars game. He’s positioned himself, along with Act, as being opposed to the woke elite’s focus on what he calls social engineering. Peters gave his State of the Nation speech on Friday in which he claimed: “There is a full-scale attack being waged on New Zealanders’ culture, identity and sense of belonging.” He complained that nowadays “there’s an awful tribalism in New Zealand politics”.

Peters pushed all the buttons on the culture war issues – claiming that the education system was the victim of “virtue signalling tinkerers”, and that government departments were more focused on relabelling themselves with Māori names than actually doing the mahi. Co-governance was also targeted as an elite agenda that would take away the “one person, one vote” Western tradition of democracy.

What are culture wars anyway?

There’s a whole new terminology that needs unpacking and defining in the new landscape of culture wars. We have been through versions associated with the “progressive” side of this debate such as political correctness, cancel culture, identity politics, and now “woke” politics. To what extent these terms are useful continues to be debated. Perhaps the better term for the milieu of more middle class progressive demands is “social justice politics”.

Much of it is associated with leftwing politics but, in reality, the left is divided over culture wars. The “cultural left” side tends to be connected with more elite, educated, and middle class activists. The more traditional, or working class orientated “old left”, is still focused on economic inequality and improving the lot of those economically disadvantaged as a whole, with a focus on universalism and civil rights.

Even the term “culture war” needs some unpacking. New Zealand lawyer Thomas Cranmer provides the following useful definition: “In essence, they are political conflicts that revolve around social and cultural issues, such as gender, race, sexuality, religion, and identity. The term was coined in the United States during the 1990s to describe the heated debates that were taking place between conservatives and progressives over issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. However, the scope of culture wars has since expanded to encompass a wide range of issues, from free speech and cancel culture to critical race theory and the role of the media in shaping public opinion.”

Problems of an escalating culture war

According to Act Party deputy leader Brooke Van Velden, New Zealand risks becoming “a divided society where cancel culture spirals out of control.” Similarly, in the weekend James Shaw pointed to the Posie Parker controversy, and said “Her arrival is the kind of risk that metastasises into broader political violence.” He told Newsroom that “There’s a real possibility we will see some form of political violence this year and someone will be injured, or worse.”

Democracy might also be harmed if the culture wars dominate this year’s election. An ugly fight over transgender politics, co-governance, or race relations would be one that alienates many voters, and reduces participation in politics. Some of the public will turn away in disgust, confusion, or fear about culture wars. The intolerance and outrage that often occurs in these debates can make ordinary voters feel unwelcome taking part in discussion and debate, or even in voting.

This doesn’t mean that the issues at the heart of culture wars are unimportant or should be suppressed. For example, there are vitally important issues and reforms that need to be progressed in terms of gender and transgender rights.

This is also a point made well by Thomas Cranmer: “it is important to note that culture wars are not inherently bad. They can provide an opportunity for different groups to engage in meaningful dialogue and debate over important issues. They can also bring attention to marginalised communities and push for greater social justice and equity.”

However, he points out that culture war debates often lack genuine, good-faith engagement: “The problem arises when culture wars become polarised and divisive, with each side demonising the other and refusing to engage in productive dialogue. This is where New Zealand currently finds itself.”

Solutions to culture wars: Critical thinking and open debate

The main problem in culture wars arise when there is no room for nuanced discussion, openness or a willingness to learn from others and opponents. Overall, there is a need for healthier debate and engagement in New Zealand politics.

This is something political columnist Janet Wilson wrote about in the weekend, arguing that we have a declining culture of critical thinking and open-mindedness: “That growing inability to think critically enables what Illinois University Ilana Redstone calls The Certainty Trap, that sense of self-righteousness that comes with having brutally judged, then condemned and dismissed, someone with whom we disagree. And when it comes to political debate, Redstone says The Certainty Trap holds us back and puts up walls.”

We need to develop our skills, Wilson says, “that includes being open-minded, having a respect for evidence and reason, being able to consider other viewpoints and perspectives, not being stuck in one position, as well as clarity and precision of thought.”

Similarly, Thomas Cranmer argues that we will deal better with culture war issues when we foster a culture of humility and tolerance: “all parties, regardless of their political affiliation, need to be willing to engage in constructive dialogue and debate over important issues. This also means that we need to be willing to listen to the perspectives and experiences of those who may hold different views from our own.”

Leftwing activist and blogger Martyn Bradbury attended Saturday’s rally and counter-rally and was appalled by both sides. He says: “Right now the entire community need to actually step back and consider how the militant cancel culture element of the debate has alienated everyone else and created the environment where Posie Parker can thrive.”

New Zealand is facing huge problems which require critical thinking and debate. We won’t be well served if such political debate and the upcoming election are highjacked by the hate and tribal opportunism we saw over the weekend.

Further reading on the Posie Parker rally and protest

Scott Palmer (Newshub): National, Greens, ACT, Labour clash over Posie Parker’s rally, freedom of speech
RNZ: Posie Parker protest: Christopher Luxon says right to free speech must be protected
1News: Q+A: Deputy PM says she wouldn’t have gone to Posie Parker counter-protest
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Sooooo, is Marama Davidson right? Do white cis males cause the violence in the world?
Chris Lynch Media: “I know who causes violence in the world, and it’s white cis men” says Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence and Sexual Violence
———-
Fran O’Sullivan (Herald): Culture wars become the new front line as election nears (paywalled)
Rachel Smalley (Today FM): I feel a very lonely voice at the moment in the mainstream media
Thomas Cranmer: Violent Suppression of free speech: Kellie-Jay Keen’s assault by transgender activists in New Zealand sparks global outrage
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Posie Parker brawl highlights Woke Left have lost ability to persuade – the only winner is ACT
Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Toxic Trans Troll cancelled & deplatformed (literally) – Thug Veto wins battle but loses Free Speech War
Caitlin Griffin (Kiwiblog): Posie Parker and the Week the Media Lost Its Collective Mind
Gordon Campbell: On the Keen-Minshull visit
Deborah Coddington (Stuff): Posie Parker and The Battle of The Atlantic
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): Posie Parker’s opponents played into her hands (paywalled)
Herald Editorial: Did Posie Parker get what she was after with Auckland visit? (paywalled)
Sasha Borissenko (Herald): Free speech too convenient a justification for thinly disguised hate speech (paywalled)
Steven Cowan: The heel of authoritarian politics stomps down on Posie Parker
Steven Cowan: Doing a hatchet job on Posie
Madeline Chapman (Spinoff): Anti-trans activism is extremely harmful. It’s also a confusingly wasteful use of time
Karl du Fresne: The battle for free speech won’t be won by hiding in the shadows
Karl du Fresne: A Day of Shame
Lee Suckling (Herald): Behind the Posie Parker row – The simple way to understand the trans experience
Anna Rawhiti-Connell (Spinoff): An alternative view of the ‘angry’ protest crowd
Liz Gordon: A very New Zealand protest
Tina Ngata: Transphobia is Settler-Colonialism
Jo Bartosch (Spiked-online): The Sheilas will not be silenced
———-
Stuff: Hate speech or free speech? Clashes in Auckland reignite debate
RNZ: Posie Parker departs New Zealand; JK Rowling blasts protest as ‘repellent’
Isaac Davison (Herald): Activist Posie Parker seen checking in at Auckland Airport escorted by police after counter-protest shuts down NZ tour
Tess McClure (Guardian): Anti-trans activist Posie Parker ends New Zealand tour after chaotic protests at event
Matthew Scott (Newsroom): Posie Parker drowned out by thousands
Nadine Roberts and Erin Gourley (Stuff): Thousands reject anti-trans movement at rallies against Posie Parker tour
RNZ: Marama Davidson hit by motorcyclist after Posie Parker protest
Caroline Williams (Stuff): Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson knocked over by motorcyclist
Craig Cooper (Herald): Buckle up your rainbow-coloured belt, here come the Tamakis
Herald: Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Church protest collides with Posie Parker objectors in Auckland CBD
Sophie Harris (Stuff): Tomato juice thrower ‘ready to face consequences if necessary’ following Posie Parker incident
Caroline Williams (Stuff): All the weird things Kiwis have thrown at people during protests
———-
Heather du Plessis-Allan (Newstalk ZB): Why did Posie’s opponents bother with the court case?
Karl du Fresne: In different circumstances, you could almost admire their chutzpah
Jonathan Milne (Newsroom): Posie Parker wins the beautiful freedom to make an ugly argument
Herald Editorial: Posie Parker presents an opportunity (paywalled)
Shaneel Lal (Herald): Why I’m organising a counterprotest against Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull/Posie Parker in Auckland
1News: ‘Potential’ for violence at Posie Parker rally
Herald: Posie Parker: Police concerns for welfare, Wellington security company reprisal fears
Herald: Posie Parker: Wellington security firm pulls out at 11th hour ahead of New Zealand tour

Other items of interest and importance today

PARLIAMENT, ELECTION
Luke Malpass (Stuff): ACT declares almost $1 million in one day from big money donors
Colin Peacock (RNZ): Mediawatch: Lifting the lid on lobbying, ministers – and the media
Luke Malpass (Stuff): The week ahead in parliament: Reminders of money and some juicy select committees
Claire Trevett (Herald): How National’s Christopher Luxon and NZ First leader Winston Peter are starting the Chris Hipkins fightback (paywalled)
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): The big issues facing te ao Māori ahead of Election 2023
Grant Duncan: The Greens’ new deal
Jo Moir (Newsroom): Risk of political violence this election high – Shaw
Geraden Cann (Stuff): AI could wreak havoc on the next election – what are the parties’ policies?
1News: Inside Parliament: Bombshell in the Bay, polls, policy and demotions
Adam Pearse and Claire Trevett (Herald): Beehive Diaries: Census’ extra-marital affair, dancing queens and who won Chris of the week? (paywalled)
Victor Billot (Newsroom): An Ode for .. Poll loser Luxon
Johnny Blades (RNZ): The House: Keeping the flow: the use of te reo at Parliament

NZ FIRST
Grant Duncan: Can Winston Peters make another come-back?
Jamie Ensor (Newshub): Winston Peters claims Kiwis’ identity under ‘full-scale attack’, will ditch ‘woke virtue signalling’, takes aim at Jacinda Ardern’s resignation
Glenn McConnell (Stuff): Winston Peters starts campaign with attacks on bilingualism and ‘the cultural cabal’
Felix Desmarais (1News): Winston Peters: NZ First would remove Māori names from Govt depts
RNZ: Winston Peters rails against secret ‘woke agenda’ in campaign speech
Mark Quinlivan (Newshub): Newshub Nation host Rebecca Wright grills Winston Peters on choosing Labour in 2017 after claiming ‘we need to take the country back’
Amelia Wade (Newshub): Winston Peters says Labour hid He Puapua – but Newshub can reveal he was among those who commissioned it

LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THREE WATERS
Andrea Vance (Stuff): Wayne Brown just helped the Government in its grab for local power
David Farrar (Kiwiblog): Auckland Council quits LGNZ
RNZ: Auckland Local Government New Zealand exit ‘expensive and rash’, critics say
Erin Johnson (Stuff): Will the Local Government exit cost Auckland Council more than staying?
Bridie Witton, Erin Gourley and Jo Lines-MacKenzie (Stuff): Mayors push for collaboration, cooperation after Wayne Brown’s ‘disappointing’ exit from Local Government NZ
Steven Walton (Stuff): ‘Better to be in the tent’ of Local Government New Zealand, says Christchurch mayor
Bridie Witton (Stuff): ‘800 members getting pissed and dancing’? Local Government NZ says it never hosted its annual conference in the Bay of Islands
Benjamin Plummer (Herald): Auckland Council quits Local Government NZ: LGNZ chief executive refutes Wayne Brown’s claims of a ‘boozy’ conference in the Bay of Islands
Ireland Hendry-Tennent (Newshub): Local Government NZ hits back after Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown says organisation’s heavy drinking not helping ratepayers
Todd Niall (Stuff): Wayne Brown launches new review of Auckland’s port future
Oliver Lewis (BusinessDesk): Auckland council doing ‘confidential’ port review (paywalled)
Andrew Bevin (Newsroom): Airport share sales fraught with difficulty – but retaining ownership is costly
Todd Niall (Stuff): Former chief science advisor to PM wants fix for Auckland’s at-risk Southern Initiative
Joseph Los’e (Herald): Independent Māori Stat Board to Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown: Leave our putea alone – and we’re not moving
Samantha Gee (RNZ): West Coast mayors have ‘heartening conversation’ over water reform fears
David Hill (RNZ): Minor tweaks expected in Three Waters ‘reset
Julie Jacobson (Stuff): Call for lower fees, with 54% of Wellington’s on-street car parks in use
Tom Hunt (Stuff): Wellington council revokes police power to trespass on Anzac Day
Hamish McNeilly (Stuff): Accusations of ‘autocratic’ leadership and creating dissent – how karakia divided a council
Jonathan Leask (Local Democracy Reporting): Fair Go’s claims about Ashburton’s recycling efforts rubbished

EDUCATION
Ben Moore (BusinessDesk): There’s nothing basic about the ‘basics’ of education (paywalled)
Luke Malspass (Stuff): Why Christopher Luxon’s education policy should have been launched by Labour
Katie Scotcher (RNZ): National’s policy aims to school Labour on education decline
Dileepa Fonseka (BusinessDesk): Education assumes its rightful place on the debate stage (paywalled)
Cathy Buntting (The Conversation): Teachers need a lot of things right now, but another curriculum ‘rewrite’ isn’t one of them
Ripu Bhatia (Stuff): National’s education policy puts neurodiverse at risk – Dyslexia Foundation
1News: Q+A: More prescriptive curriculum helps neurodiverse students – National
Mike Boon: It’s official: National have an education policy
Gabrielle McCulloch (Stuff): Inside the comms ‘mess’ of school closures during the Auckland floods
Lee Kenny (Stuff): Secondary and area school teachers will strike again next week
Lee Kenny (Stuff): Kindergarten and primary school teachers rule out strike action next week
———-
Jamie Morton (Herald): Revealed: How AUT move to shut NZ’s only radio observatory sparked a top-level Govt scramble (paywalled)
Alex Penk: From uniform fonts to uniform thoughts
Jonathan Killick (Stuff): ‘Like a family’: Artists and industry say MAINZ closure bad for Kiwi music

HEALTH
Rachel Thomas (Stuff): ‘Not a good time to get sick’: data lays bare the burgeoning crunch points in our health system
Nicholas Jones (Herald): Waikato Hospital cardiac surgery patients caught in delays; overdue cases sent to Auckland, Wellington
Michael Neilson (Herald): ‘Significant impact’: MSD dental grants near $15m in first three months of policy (paywalled)
Fiona Ellis (ODT): DCC urges public to protest hospital cuts
Marc Daalder (Newsroom): Health advice scrubbed due to anti-trans pressure
Jem Traylen (BusinessDesk): $1 Billion of exports jeopardised by Therapeutic Products Bill (paywalled)
Stephen Forbes (Local Democracy Reporting): New unit aims to tackle south Auckland’s huge obesity problem
Lyric Waiwiri-Smith (Stuff): Ozempic in New Zealand: How could the drug affect Kiwis?
Helen Harvey (Stuff): A lifetime of health experience already behind new Tui Ora chief executive

COVID
Jenée Tibshraeny (Interest): Treasury still can’t say how much Covid money has physically been spent (paywalled)
Jamie Morton (Herald): Explained: What to know ahead of NZ’s next ‘big boost’ against Covid-19 (paywalled)
Sam Olley (RNZ): Negative excess mortality sign NZ got it right with Covid-19 response – Sir Ashley Bloomfield
Hannah Martin (Stuff): By the numbers: Three years since Aotearoa’s first Covid-19 lockdown

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
1News: Q+A: China’s challenge in stepping up diplomatic efforts
Thomas Manch (Stuff): New Zealand won’t ban TikTok like Australia or the US. Here’s why
Don Brash: New Zealand’s foreign policy dilemma
Jane Patterson (RNZ): Mahuta – ‘We take seriously’ NZ’s relationship with China
Reuters: China’s top diplomat: Confident about ties with New Zealand
Thomas Manch (Stuff): Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta meets top-ranking Chinese diplomats in Beijing
Kelvin McDonald (Whakaata Māori): China visit: Foreign Minister emphasises NZ’s interest in ‘peaceful and stable’ Pacific region
1News: Mahuta tells China of concerns over lethal aid to Russia
Agence France-Presse (Guardian): New Zealand foreign minister tells China of ‘deep concerns’ over rights abuses and Taiwan
AP: Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta tells China of concerns about lethal aid to Russia for its war in Ukraine

EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME, FORESTRY
Anne Salmond (Newsroom): Greenwashing and the forestry industry in NZ
Aaron Smale (Newsroom): East Coast farm collapses after Māori Carbon group takes over
Angus Kebbell (Interest): David Norton says aspects of carbon farming with exotics are “ecologically fraudulent”
Brent Edwards (NBR): Treasury’s reservations about advice on ETS settings (paywalled)
Jamie Gray (Herald): Government review of Emissions Trading Scheme could be far-reaching – ANZ (paywalled)
RNZ: Businesses currently encouraged to offset emissions by planting trees – economist
Guy Trafford (Interest): Farmers and foresters need to take responsibility for the impacts their decisions have on the wider community

CLIMATE CHANGE, EXTREME WEATHER, INFRASTRUCTURE
Diane Brand (Newsroom): Bring back the Ministry of Works
Hamish Cardwell (RNZ): Managed retreat: How the rest of the world handles it
Damien Venuto (Herald): The Front Page: Adaptation vs mitigation – What should NZ do about climate change?
Brent Edwards (NBR): New Zealand’s risk assessment needs to improve (paywalled)
Tom Dillane (Herald): Inside Wayne Brown’s flood review: Staff interrogated in ‘minute detail’, no call to Minister McAnulty (paywalled)
Amanda Cropp (Stuff): DIY work on flood-damaged houses could expose asbestos, putting residents, volunteer helpers and tradies at risk
RNZ: Warning of asbestos contamination in cyclone clean-ups
RNZ: Work underway on $5m stopbank upgrade to protect Dunedin Airport, farmland

ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION
Tess McClure (Guardian): ‘Like you’re in a horror movie’: pollution leaves New Zealand wetlands irreversibly damaged
Kirsty Johnson (Stuff): An environmental disaster was waiting to happen in Tolaga Bay. No one listened
Craig Ashworth (Local Democracy Reporting): Lost species, missing seaweed, dead eels: 40 years on the Taranaki coast
RNZ: 1080 drops planned for Mt Messenger for pest control

INEQUALITY
Max Rashbrooke (Stuff): How will Hipkins tackle stagnating progress on child poverty?
1News: Q+A: Benefits increasing but more investment needed, minister claims

ECONOMY
Jenée Tibshraeny (Herald): Revealed: Finance Minister Grant Robertson sought advice from Reserve Bank on introducing a bank tax (paywalled)
Dan Brunskill (Interest): The pandemic made you poorer but public policy made you feel rich
Liam Dann (Herald): The big squeeze – RBNZ warning to Kiwis needs to include Government spending (paywalled)
Jenny Ruth (BusinessDesk): Inflation winners and breaking things (paywalled)
Shane Te Pou (Herald): Don’t cast workers on the scrapheap (paywalled)
Gordon Stuart (Stuff): Global banking crisis: we won’t escape the fallout
Hillmarè Schulze (NBR): We have a recession every 10 years – it should not be a surprise (paywalled)

HOUSING
Benn Bathgate (Stuff): ‘Unintended consequences’ – Ministry admits Rotorua MSD motels did spike crime
Laura Smith (Local Democracy Reporting): Rotorua emergency housing motels positive experience for many – government-commissioned report
Christine Rovoi (Stuff): Homelessness, housing insecurity remain significant for Māori – study
Duncan Greive (Spinoff): Inside the radical plan to build ‘the new state house’ and change renting forever
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): Kids versus a mortgage? Why getting into your first home is harder with children
Susan Edmunds (Stuff): How much higher are home loan rates going to go?
Erin Gourley (Stuff): Housing plan for former prison site ‘not an exclusive enclave’

A group of “pink shoes” women in Aotearoa New Zealand campaigning for gender equality in the Catholic Church took their message with a display of well-worn shoes to St Patrick’s Cathedral plaza in Auckland today on International Women’s Day.

It was part of a national and global “Pink Shoes into the Vatican” campaign.

“Women from all over the country have sent their worn out shoes with their stories of service to the Catholic Church, only to find that the doors to full equality in all areas of the ministry and leadership remain firmly closed,” said an explanatory flyer handed out by supporters.

“A vibrant church requires a synodal structure in which all members share full equality by right of their baptism.”

The organisers, Be The Change, say: “We are interested in your story. You are invited to email or write to us telling of your experience with the church. You do not have to be a practising Catholic to participate.”

‘Pink Shoes into the Vatican’ campaign stories.  Video: Be The Change

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

This is a story that is not confined to New Zealand women in their early 60s, but which focusses on them as a surprisingly large group facing challenging circumstances. My focus narrows even further; my emphasis here is on ‘married’ women, and with partners presently (or soon to be) eligible of New Zealand Superannuation, New Zealand’s universal retirement pension.

These women are part of what the Americans call ‘Generation Jones’; in the absence of another label, we may use that moniker here, as Gen-J. For simplicity, we may think of Gen-J as people born from 1956 to 1965. People today in their early sixties – from 60 to 64 – were born from 1957 to 1962, the years of peak birth numbers in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Gen-J are commonly included as ‘boomers’, but they are not true post-war baby boomers. Boom generation, yes; post-war, no. Unlike classic baby boomers, their parents (for the most part) were too young to have participated as adults during World War Two. Typically, Gen-J parents were born in the years from 1926 to 1945. Further, many Gen-J people did not have grandparents who participated in World War One. Gen-J grandparents were mostly born after 1900.

Last decade, Gen-J recently constituted much of the political leadership in the world; think of people in the age group of Theresa May, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, Barrack Obama, John Key, and Boris Johnson. Now the leadership baton has largely passed to generations X and Y (b.1966 to 1986); consider these leaders, ex-leaders, and would-be leaders of western liberal democracies (from young to youngest): David Cameron, Mark Rutte, Marine Le Pen, Christopher Luxon, Nicola Sturgeon, Justin Trudeau, Pedro Sánchez, Alexis Tsipras, Elizabeth Truss, Giorgia Meloni, Emanuel Macron, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Leo Varadkar, Rishi Sunak, Jacinda Ardern, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Sanna Marin, Gabriel Boric, Sebastian Kurz. (Chris Luxon and Nicola Sturgeon were born on the same day, but I give Mr Luxon seniority because of New Zealand’s more advanced time zone.)

Older generations are not entirely impotent, politically, though. Lula has just returned to power in Brazil. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are baby boomers (b.1952 and 1953). Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are of the ‘lucky generation’ who parented the Joneses. (My prediction is that that lucky generation, born between 1935 and 1945, will prove to be the longest lived, ever; at least in western liberal democracies. Their longevity is presently distorting current life expectancy projections.)

Life Stage

Being in one’s sixties represents an important transitional life stage. Almost all women of this age have completed menopause; they are at a new beginning, not an end. Most women in New Zealand aged 60 are very much employed in the labour force, noting that being employed at this age often (and appropriately) means being self-employed or even an employer. In contrast, most women aged 70 are retired, although by no means inactive; there is much more to an active life than paid work.

A not insignificant minority of women in their 60s have had personal health challenges. One of the important challenges is cancer, which is more of an equal-opportunity condition than some others which affect men more. An important minority of women (and of course not only women) in their early-sixties will be cancer survivors. Other women are facing that challenge, at present, in a state of uncertainty.

Being in one’s sixties commonly means wishing to work fewer than forty hours per week; maybe working four days per week (for four days’ pay); or maybe joining the ranks of ‘relievers’, critically important in the education and health sectors.

Women in their early 60s are very likely to be grandmothers; indeed active grandmothers. Additionally, they may be mothers of millennials living ‘at home’, or of older adult children with special needs. (It is not only people under 25 who are facing mental health challenges, or debilitating circumstances such as long covid and other forms of chronic fatigue. There are peak working-age adults, now Gen-Y, who need care.) Many of the cohort of super-women we are focusing on have substantial responsibility towards their still-living parents (including parents resident in those rest homes which are understaffed, some of which may soon have to close); we remember that these parents, many now in their nineties, belong to a particularly long-lived generation.

Further, and noting that our particular focus is on women in their early 60s with older partners, most of those partners now have much lower incomes than they used to have. These older partners, mainly husbands, may have significant healthcare needs, and may no longer have health insurance. It is very common for women in their early sixties to be the ‘family breadwinner’, either as sole-breadwinner or principal breadwinner.

Some Gen-J women will be amongst the most vulnerable to online financial scammers. Many women of this generation are not entirely comfortable in our increasingly on-line world. Many, having low levels of financial confidence, may delegate financial expertise; they become a target demographic for financial predators.

In terms of housing, a substantial minority of women in their early 60s will be living in houses which are not mortgage-free. Some are renters. We should not assume that housing costs do not loom large in their lives; nor other (non-mortgage) debts. Indeed people who are to some degree ‘free-lance’ workers will normally get through hard times such as pandemics and recessions by extending house-mortgages. Or they will take business risks, meaning debt; part of normal life for businesspeople. Rising interest rates can be particularly problematic for our under-resourced and unsung community leaders.

Women in their early sixties have traditionally played substantial roles in running and staffing the ‘voluntary sector’. Charities and the like become particularly important when communities – and countries, and the world – are going through economic crises. When the going gets tough, the tough women get going.

Equal Pay

Women in this age cohort have always had pay equality – equal pay for equal work – thanks to legislation passed in 1972, towards the end of Robert Muldoon’s first tenure as Minister of Finance. They also became beneficiaries of a recommitment to universalist public income support, with the advent of the Domestic Purposes Benefit. And, again thanks to Robert Muldoon, in 1976 Gen-J’s grandmothers became eligible in their own right for a significant universal retirement income from age 60; and, as ‘non-qualifying spouses’, for a lesser universal retirement income before age 60 when their older husbands turned 60. Life was looking better for Aotearoan women in the 1970s; as mothers, as workers, and as older citizens whatever the nature of their working-age contributions might have been.

Despite the Equal Pay Act of 1972, women’s wage and salary earnings remain significantly lower than men’s. The reasons for this are substantially what statisticians call ‘the composition effect’. One composition effect relates to age and time-served; the age and experience attributes of female employees has always differed, on average, from those of their male colleagues. One significant issue here is that a new surge of inexperienced (mainly young) women gaining employment increases the overall gender earnings gap; this effect would be exacerbated if accompanied by a substantial departure of women in their 60s from their employed roles.

Another composition-like effect is that average hours worked by fulltime female employees are almost certainly less than average hours for fulltime males. Here it should be noted that, whereas the standard fulltime work-week is 37½ hours, people working 30 hours per week are still classed as fulltime workers. (Such people may be working four days at 7½ hours per day; others, especially workers with school-age children, may be working 6 hours per week over five days.)

While statistical analyses need to account more for hours worked by fulltime workers, another composition effect is the greater proportion of female than male employees working part-time; and it is likely that hourly wages for part-time work are lower on average than hourly wages for fulltime work. Also, regarding hours of work, it is entirely possible that men do more unpaid overtime for their employers, meaning that true male hourly wages may be being overstated. (Women almost certainly do more unpaid work than men, though probably not as much for their employers.)

Another composition effect is that of contractors versus employees. In human history, most workers have been contractors – self-employed, often casual, working on own account – rather than employees (who are bonded). The apex decade of the employee was the 1970s. Since then, there has been a growth in contractor labour, especially amongst older workers; and also more workers employed by sub-contractors. Earnings’ datasets have a systemic bias against self-employment.

The Employer Effect

The reason traditionally given for the male vis-à-vis female pay gap is that certain occupations are female dominated; and that there are employer biases as to why workers in female-dominant occupations are paid less on average than employees in male-dominated occupations.

Are systemic employer biases, if they exist at all, likely to be much different whether employers are male or female? Indeed, it is likely that female-dominated occupations are more likely than male-dominated occupations to have female employers, and we would be surprised if female employers have unconscious biases against female workers. (And we should note that ‘effective’ employers – hirers and firers – are often managers, employees themselves.)

The Government-as-Employer Effect

A version of the employer effect may be the most important composition effect of all. I understand that a substantial majority of female-dominated occupations have governments (central or local) as their effective employers. In most cases the government is not the direct employer; but government entities and government subsidies play crucial roles in the flow of wages to women.

An important distinction between government (and government entity) employers and private employers is a divergent approach to finance. In particular, private employers are expected to borrow and spend; to take risks, to fund and grow their enterprises by running financial deficits. Government employers have a completely different financial culture; in particular they are extremely deficit-averse, even in the face of the very low interest rates which predominated last decade. (This deficit-aversion – aka austerity – is commonly called ‘fiscal responsibility’.) Government employers, unlike private employers, claim that there is no money to pay workers more; they have very different relationships with their bank managers. And, as a consequence of their financial culture, governments create entities which separate governments, the effective employers of many if not most women, from the legal employers of those women.

Foremost among these entities are the organisations providing healthcare and education services. Two of the most important in New Zealand are Te Whatu Ora and Te Pūkenga. My focus here will be on the latter, while noting that most organisations in these sectors are in trouble, short of finance and short of labour. And, taking healthcare more broadly, we should add the Palliative Care sector and the Rest Home and Residential Care sector. And General Practice doctors.

Education Sector – Te Pūkenga

The education sector is made up almost entirely of ‘business and business-like organisations’ dependent on government funding. The smaller organisations are Early Childhood Centres. Bigger are the Primary Schools. Bigger again are the Secondary Schools, and then the Universities. Biggest of all is the new government behemoth – Te Pūkenga – which replaces a whole sector, the Polytechnic Sector.

Many would argue that the biggest economic challenge that New Zealand faces, at present, is labour supply; skilled, but not only skilled, workers. In this case, getting Te Pūkenga right, investing in skills’ education, is central to Aotearoa’s economic future. Yet the botched implementation of this underwhelming ‘flagship’ project gets almost no media coverage; and when it does the problems aired are almost entirely financial.

Te Pūkenga represent the sharp end of government financial retrenchment comparable with the closing down of Teachers’ Colleges during the Great Depression. (This is on top of a half-decade, the later 2010s, in which the two economic sectors showing the least employment growth were ‘education’, and ‘the media’.) At least with Te Whatu Ora, the public is invited by the media to evaluate its success on the basis of clinical outcomes, and not just on its ability to balance its budget. With Te Pūkenga the issues given public airing are almost entirely an inability to meet unreasonably tight financial targets; targets which create employment opportunities only to professional rationers.

Our main theme here, however, is the plight of women in their early-sixties. It so happens that the ‘Polytech’ sector is a substantial employer of older women, most of whom earn above the average female hourly wage. These are women whose personal circumstances will be such that almost all can relate to some of the challenges identified at the beginning of this essay.

It seems that the very-highly-paid men and women tasked by government to build Te Pūkenga as a ‘financially sustainable’ near-monopoly for skills’ education have been told by government that their proposals are insufficiently austere. Redundancies – potentially many redundancies – are in the wind.

Much of the coming attrition in skills’ education – whether the attrition is ‘natural’, or through artifice – will fall on women in their early sixties. Such attrition will aggravate the gender pay gap. But this big picture ‘macro’ impact pales into insignificance compared to the ‘micro’ impacts on many of these women, and on the people who depend on them.

Public Superannuation and the ‘Non-Qualifying Spouse’

In the New Zealand of 1984, women were well protected from financial distress. The country had high wage rates, and equal pay for equal work. (Price-adjusted wages peaked in New Zealand during the late 1970s.) In addition to National Superannuation (‘Super’), paid as of right to women on the same basis as to men, and regardless of their employment histories, many women could qualify early for Super (albeit receiving a lesser amount), as ‘non-qualifying spouses’. (There was at the time an egalitarian tax structure which clawed back substantial amounts of the universal Super being paid to those who needed it less.) There was also a Widow’s Benefit, a sex-discriminatory benefit which lasted into the present century; this helped a group of women in their fifties and early sixties, no longer spouses, who could not become ‘non-qualifying spouses’.

My story to tell here is about the fate of the ‘non-qualifying-spouse’ superannuation benefit. Although less so than in the past, a majority of households move into a ‘retirement’ context when men – most of whom are married, and to younger women – reach the age of 65. (65 is still commonly called the ‘retirement age’.)

From the 1970s until the 1990s, ‘Retirement age’ in Aotearoa New Zealand was 60; not 65. Before the 1970s, it was 65 for men and 60 for women. In the 1980s, in two steps the Labour Government dramatically cut the top tax rates which only higher-income-earners paid. Further, that Government introduced a quite different means to claw back Universal Super, as it was popularly called. They created a tax surcharge payable by Super recipients on their private earnings (above a threshold); Super became a ‘guaranteed’ income rather than a ‘universal’ income, making it increasingly an alternative to rather than a supplement to private income. The focus during the 1980s was to create low ‘marginal tax rates’ for people of working age, and to ‘target’ public income support.

In the 1990s, the National Government raised the ‘retirement age’ from 60 to 65. (This may have been an appropriate thing to have done during a period of labour shortage, but it was in fact done at a time of high unemployment, forcing labour supply to increase even more than usual at a time when labour demand was low. The usual effect of increased labour supply as a response to decreased labour demand is called ‘the Added-Worker Effect’.) Around the same time, National also held the referendums which led to proportional representation (multi-party government), a change which proved important to the full restoration of Universal Super.

Perhaps as a sop to those whose retirement aspirations had to be put aside, National created a ’55-plus Benefit’ which was widely interpreted as an unconditional unemployment benefit. Further, the option to receive early Super at a lower rate as a ‘non-qualifying spouse’ was retained. Then, during New Zealand’s first non-war coalition government since the Depression, superannuation was restored in 1998 as a fully universal benefit; the tax-surcharge was abandoned thanks to Winston Peters’ New Zealand First Party. (During the post-1984 stage of New Zealand’s economic history, neither National nor Labour have been keen on universal benefits; though both ‘major parties’ recognise that, for New Zealanders, universal benefits have been popular and undiscriminating.)

In 1998, the 55-plus Benefit was replaced by the ‘Community Wage’, a non-universal ‘Job-Seeker’ benefit. And the payment of Super to non-qualifying spouses of superannuitants had become, unlike Super itself, a means-tested benefit. Actually, it was worse than that. Not only would the non-qualifying spouse be subject to a means-test, so would the qualifying spouse. This meant, in practice, that many women in their early sixties were denied the option to be joint retirees; they would instead have to hustle in the labour market if they lost their jobs. Many would ‘serve time’ until they were 65, knowing that they would be more productive as volunteers or as small-business women.

But at least the non-qualifying spouse option was there, providing a degree of security to married women in their early sixties; married women without rich husbands. The non-qualifying-spouse benefit provided basic security in the event of an economic contraction.

Then, on 9 November 2020, even that was taken away, with barely a word in the press. This could not have happened had Winston Peters still been a part of government, as indeed he was from 2017 to October 2020. Instead we had, for the first time, a numerically female-dominated government – a majority Labour government with support from the Māori Party and the Green Party – take away, with indecent haste, the one remaining unconditional public income option that mainly benefited women. Even worse, for older unemployed women who prefer not to hustle for another job, their pensioner husbands continued to get their Super at the lowest rate, the ‘married rate’. If such an income-less woman leaves her husband, then the husband gets a ‘pay increase’, moving on to the top ‘living-alone unmarried’ rate. (She also is denied access to her Kiwi-Saver account.)

So now let’s consider the many older women employed by Te Pūkenga who are fearing redundancy before they reach pensionable age. Their circumstances might not be so bad in 2022; with labour shortages, most could probably find another reasonably well-paid job. Although having to hustle in the job market after having made substantial contributions in the education sector would be galling; especially given the many other things going on in many of their lives (as indicated above).

But at present the central banks of the world, including New Zealand’s own Reserve Bank, are doing their very best to create a recession; to induce an economic contraction in the belief that cost-pressures in today’s world can be magicked away through ‘monetary policy’. The Labour Market in 2024 will probably be very different to what it is today, with few opportunities for the soon-to-retire unemployed.

Even more important, the coming recession is going to require many community services – voluntary work, social entrepreneurship – for which this group of women have just the right set of skills. These are people who have been mothers and time jugglers; people who will be as well able as anyone to contribute to an easing of the ‘complex social circumstances’ faced by so many people today aged 15 to 50. (These younger people are the people who represent this decade’s new healthcare and educational challenges.) We are going to subject our older women to dole queues, instead of allowing them to supply the nuanced social capital that they would – if they could – be willing and able to provide.

Universal Benefits are particularly beneficial for older and younger residents

Since 1984, the Labour and National parties have spearheaded a movement to convert the mid-twentieth-century welfare state into a charity state in which Ministry people and people with government contracts provide the charity. This system of control and neglect works almost satisfactorily for many people, especially those in mid-career.

But, if we are to harness the full social and economic productivity of our under-25s and over-55s, we need universal supports, for them at least. We need our younger and our older people to be independent-minded risk-takers and social-entrepreneurs, not time-servers. Nor people jumping from one short-term employment contract to another, forever having to maintain polished résumés and flattering social media profiles.

If we cannot have a Basic Universal Income for all working-age adults, set at the level of a young adult’s unemployment benefit, then we should at least introduce an alternative tax code that achieves this outcome for people over 55 (and for people aged 18 to 25). Or, failing that, we could re-establish a ‘non-qualifying-spouse’ Super benefit, as an unconditional benefit payable to non-employed partners – aged 55 to 64 – of public superannuitants.

Conclusion

I have argued that governments of today and the recent past – governments, and government entities in which women may hold half the power – are particularly responsible for the present plight of older Aotearoan women of ‘working age’. In giving the example of undervalued senior polytechnic staff, I have barely mentioned the plights of older nurses, doctors, and school-teachers, and the many journeyman (and journeywoman) academics in our universities. These are all people who, for the most part, depend upon the government for their pay-cheques, and, if not appreciated where they are, could be released under conditions where they can be of value elsewhere, and without undue economic hardship.

Gen-J, despite their extraordinary range of skills, are now a governed rather than a governing generation; and a very large generation. In twenty years time, who will care about, let alone care for, those women (mostly single women by then) now in their early sixties?

*******

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.

Great strides have been taken to empower women and girls in the Asia-Pacific region since the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing adopted an ambitious global agenda to achieve gender equality twenty-five years ago. Gender parity has been achieved in primary education. Maternal mortality has been halved. Today, the region’s governments are committed to overcoming the persistent challenges of discrimination, gender-based violence and women’s unequal access to resources and decision-making.

The Asia-Pacific Ministerial Conference for the Beijing+25 Review will meet in Bangkok this week to explore how more Beijing Declaration commitments can be met to improve the lives of women and girls in the region. Asia-Pacific governments have reviewed their progress and identified three priority areas, areas where action is imperative to accelerate progress in the coming five years.

First, we must end violence against women, such a severe human rights violation which continues to hinder women’s empowerment. As many as one in two women in the region have experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner in the last 12 months. Countries in the region have adopted laws and policies to prevent and respond to violence against women. This is progress on which we must build. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2015 adopted the Convention against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, and a Regional Plan of Action on the Elimination of Violence Against Women in 2018. Free legal services, hotlines and digital applications to report violence, and emergency shelters and safe spaces for survivors are increasingly common. New partnerships are underway challenging stigma and stereotypes, working directly with boys and men. However, more investment is needed to prevent violence, and to ensure all women and girls who experienced violence will have access to justice and essential services. 

Second, women’s political representation must be increased in Asia and the Pacific. Our region’s representation rates are behind the global average. Only one in five parliamentarians are women in Asia-Pacific. Despite governments committing to gender parity in decision making 25 years ago in Beijing, the region has seen the share of women in parliament grow at just 2.2 percentage points annually over the past two decades. We must therefore look to where faster progress has been made. In several countries, quotas have helped increase the number of women in parliament. These need to be further expanded and complemented with targeted, quality training and mentoring for women leaders and removing the barriers of negative norms, stigma and stereotypes of women in politics and as leaders.

Third, economic empowerment remains key. Only half the women in our region are in paid work, compared with 80 percent of men. Ours is the only region in the world where women’s labour-force participation is decreasing in the past 10 years. Two out of three working women are in the informal sector, often with no social protection and in hazardous conditions. Legislative measures to deliver equal pay and policies to ensure the recruitment, retention and promotion of women must be part of the solution, as must supporting the transition of women from informal to formal work sectors. Digital and financial inclusion measures can empower women to unleash their entrepreneurial potential and support economic growth, jobs and poverty reduction. Action has been taken in all these areas by individual countries. They can be given scale by countries working at the regional level.

Next year will mark the convergence of the 25 years of implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and the five-year milestone of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Investments and financing for gender equality need to be fully committed and resourced to realize these ambitious targets and commitments.  Our hope is that the Asia-Pacific Ministerial Conference for the Beijing+25 Review will help provide the necessary momentum. Now is time to craft priority actions for change and accelerate the realization of human rights and opportunities for all women and men, girls and boys. Let us remain ambitious in our vision, and steadfast in our determination to achieve gender equality and women empowerment in Asia and the Pacific.

About the authors:

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of ESCAP.

Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Director of UN Women.