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.

Fiji MP Lynda Tabuya has been dismissed as the country’s Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection.

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said in a statement that in light of the recent events concerning the conduct of Lynda Tabuya, and in consideration of:

• the Oath she has taken as a Minister; and
• standards expected of any Minister

He had decided to exercise the power conferred upon to him by Section 92(3)(b) of the Constitution, to dismiss her as a minister, with immediate effect.

She will remain as a Member of Parliament.

Rabuka said this was not a decision he had taken lightly, but one that was “necessary in the best interest of the people that we serve”.

Sashi Kiran will replace Lynda Tabuya as the Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection, effective from the date of her swearing in by the President, Rabuka said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Background Image courtesy of Nick Minto, Copyright 2024 Nick Minto; photographed November 6, 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn discuss:

• Why Democrats Lost: Incumbency, Elitism, Class & Alienation, Identity Politics…
• Why Trump Won: Anti-Establishment, Populism, Avatar for the Alienated…
• What to Expect Next: Trump Appointments, Isolationism, Geopolitical Impact & Response…

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn encourage interaction while live, and encourage their audience to lodge comments and questions. Please subscribe to our YouTube channel and click on notification-bell for an alert for future programmes.

Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Background image: courtesy of and Copyright Nick Minto 2024. Image taken November 6 2024, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

This raised the question: is enough being done to protect female reporters in the Pacific region?

In 2022, the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, in partnership with the University of the South Pacific Journalism Programme, launched a research report on the “Prevalence and impact of sexual harassment on female journalists: A Fiji case study”.

Of the 42 respondents in the survey, the youngest was 22, and the oldest was 51, with an average age of 33.2 years. The average amount of work experience was 8.3 years.

Most respondents (80.5 percent) worked in print, with the others choosing online and/or broadcasting. Most respondents answered that they were aware of sexual harassment occurring.

The ABC’s Fiji reporter, Lice Monovo is an experienced journalist who has worked for RNZ Pacific and The Guardian.

She said she was not surprised by the findings and such incidents were familiar to her.

“There were things I had encountered, and some close friends had, and they were things I had seen but what I did also feel was shock that it was still happening and shock that it was more widespread.”

After reading the preliminary results of the report, she realised that although women did take steps, including reporting harassment and approaching their employers or asking for help, still not enough was being done to protect female journalists.

“Their concerns and worries, and the things they went through were invalidated, they were told to ‘suck it up’, they were told to put it behind them.”

Movono added that often the burden and responsibility for the harassment were shifted to them, the victims.

“So no, I don’t think enough was done,” she said.

Fiji Women’s Rights Movement’s Laisa Bulatale said many of the women in the research experienced verbal, physical, gestural, and online harassment at work. She said it was not only confined to the workplace.

“A lot of the harassment was also experienced when they went and did assignments or when they had to do interviews with high-ranking officials in government, MPs, even rugby personalities or people in the sports industry,” she said.

She said they were justifiably hesitant to report these problems.

“They [female reporters] feared victim blaming and a lot of shame so a lot of the female journalists that we spoke to in the survey said they carried that with them, and they didn’t feel they knew enough to be able to report the incident.

“And if they did, they were not confident enough that the complaint processes or the referral pathways for them within the organisations they were working in would hear the case or address it.”

Georgina Kekea is an experienced Solomon Islands journalist and editor of Tavali News. She completed a survey of female reporters in the Solomon Islands’ newsroom.

“When I got the responses back, I guess for someone working in the industry, it just validated also what you have been through in your career. What all of us are going through as female journalists,”

Kekea said that there was not much support coming from the superiors in the newsroom.

“Mostly because I think we have males who are leading the team, not understanding issues which women face, and of course, being a Melanesian society, the culture plays a big part, and also obstacles men face when it comes to addressing women’s issues,” Kekea said.

Alex Rheeney is former editor of both PNG’s Post-Courier and the Samoa Observer.

He said he was not surprised by the panel’s discussion.

“Our female colleagues, female reporters, female broadcasters, they go through some very, very huge challenges that those of us who were working in the newsroom as a reporter before didn’t go through simply because of the fact we were male, and it’s unacceptable.”

“Why do we have to have those challenges today?”

He said that newsrooms should develop policies to look after the welfare and safety of female reporters.

“We just have to look at the findings from the survey that was done in Fiji.”

He was positive that the Fijian survey had been done but queried what the follow-up steps should be in terms of putting in place mechanisms to protect female reporters.

“I can only think back to the time when I was the editor of the Post-Courier, I had to drive one of my female reporters to the Boroka police station to get a restraining order against her husband.

“I got personally involved because I knew that it was already affecting her, her children and her family.”

Rheeney said that the media industry needed to do more.

The personal intervention he had undertaken, was a response to an individual problem. However, the industry needed to be able to do more, as harassment and violence against female journalists were in a state of crisis.

“We can’t afford to sit back and just wait for it to happen; we need to be proactive.”

Rheeney believed that the media industry across the Pacific needed to put more measures in place to protect female journalists and staff both in the newsroom and when out on assignment.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

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

Fiji’s Women and Children’s Minister Lynda Tabuya says Pacific island countries need to “strengthen our laws” on online harassment.

Tabuya spoke to RNZ Pacific on the sidelines of the Pacific Women in Power forum taking place in Auckland this week.

She said the issue that she was dealing with — which is allegations of a sex and drug scandal between her and former cabinet minister Aseri Radrodro — was currently with the police.

“[Police] are investigating it,” she said.

“And it just so happens that a person who was causing this harassment online lives in Sydney,” she said.

She said she was able to get the assistance of Australia’s online safety watchdog to issue the notice to the person to take down the content — images — because it is a crime in Australia.

“If you put up content that is or appears to be the person, so then the person [who published it] needs to take the content down otherwise they can face prosecution,” she said.

‘Grateful for swift action’
“That was the process I followed and I’m grateful to the Safety Commissioner of Australia for the swift action.”

However, she said the situation she found herself in was not exclusive to her.

“It’s me today, it could be someone else tomorrow. It doesn’t have to be a minister or public figure.

“But if you have women in Fiji or across the Pacific who are facing this, and they’re being attacked — especially for populations where there are more people outside of the country than in [the] country.

Tabuya said therefore there was a need for strong policies, not just in Fiji, but across the region.

“You get more attacks from people who live overseas. Women MPs need to reach out to those countries where those people are attacking them live because the laws are much stronger.

“But it’s also a lesson for us within to strengthen our laws so that we can stand up against online bullying.

“The world is unfair and being a woman in politics, we face a lot of unfairness and injustices. But I think it also makes us so much more determined to stand up and be heard,” she added.

Meanwhile, Tabuya is currently the subject of an inquiry by her political party following the sex and drug allegation, the outcome of which has yet to be released.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

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’

The swearing in of Labour list MP Soraya Peke-Mason to Parliament on October 25 will mark a milestone for women in Aotearoa New Zealand.

For the first time in its history, women in New Zealand’s Parliament will have an equal share of seats in the House.

“That’s quite significant,” Peke-Mason said. “It really shows the maturity of Aotearoa in terms of equity from a gender perspective.”

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said reaching the milestone was “significant and heartening”.

“Our Parliament will always be better when the diversity of voices in New Zealand are heard in our law making and government.

“The Labour Party in particular has been deeply committed to having equality of representation within our own caucus and we are really excited to welcome Soraya to our team.”

Peke-Mason will also be the first MP sworn in by the new Speaker, her cousin Te Tai Hauāuru MP Adrian Rurawhe, and the first new MP pledging allegiance to the new king, Charles III.

Sworn in with Te Reo
Representing the Rangitīkei electorate and supported by kaumātua and whānau from the river and mountain tribes and Rangitīkei, she will be sworn in at 2pm, in Te Reo Māori, and will give her maiden speech at 5.45pm.

“It is an honour and a privilege to be going to Parliament to represent our rohe,” Peke-Mason said.

“Over the last one or two decades my work has taken me across the Whanganui, the Ruapehu and the Rangitīkei districts.

“I’m excited and proud to be able to represent our rohe, and for Te Awa Tupua, for Rangitīkei, for all of us to have another strong voice at a table that makes really important and hard decisions on behalf of Aotearoa.”

It is two years since Peke-Mason missed out at the 2020 election. Her elevation to Parliament was announced in June after news that Kris Faafoi would leave politics and Trevor Mallard would move on to a diplomatic posting.

Peke-Mason, who lives at Rātana south of Whanganui, was Rangitīkei’s first wahine Māori councillor for 12 years until 2019, when she unsuccessfully ran for Horizons Regional Council.

In 2020, she stood in the general election in Rangitīkei against incumbent Ian McKelvie and was ranked No 60 on the Labour list.

‘You just get on with it’
“After the results of the last election, there was a possibility that I could enter Parliament but you just get on with it. You leave that there to the side and you just get on with your mahi at home.”

She was appointed to the Whanganui District Health Board and to its Hauora ā Iwi Relationship Board. She also helped lead the Whanganui Māori Regional Tourism board, was a member of Rangitīkei District Council’s Te Roopu Ahi Kā and held a number of iwi Māori and Māori trust governance roles.

“I’ve had plenty of time to be able to exit the work that I’ve been doing in the rohe, to tidy up those loose ends, to finish up projects properly, look at replacements, and work with Māori authorities that I’ve done work for to ensure there’s an appropriate exit process so that they’re not left in the lurch,” she said.

“And I’ve also been able to exit some of the boards I’ve been on.

“I’ve been lucky to have the time to do that. Not every MP gets that time.”

Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The People’s Party has made an unprecedented announcement to endorse four women candidates for all four National Capital District (NCD) seats in the Papua New Guinea national election this year.

Making the announcement at Parliament House, People’s Party founder and Enga Governor, Sir Peter Ipatas introduced the four candidates — Tania Bale (Nugent) for Moresby Northeast, Anna Kavana Bais for Moresby Northwest, Michelle Hau’ofa for Moresby South and Sylvia Pascoe for NCD regional.

The four women rallied behind Sir Peter as he made the revelation, where he said: “These are women with integrity — if people of this city decide to put a women team to lead them then I think they can make a big difference.

“People’s Party has a history and culture of integrity and we are supporting candidates that reflect this — both men and women. We believe these four candidates we are endorsing for the NCD seats hold the People’s Party values and principles.”

Party leader and Jiwaka Governor William Tongamp said: “People’s Party supports women leaders and believes the way to get more women into Parliament is to increase the number of women standing in seats around the country.

“That is why we are proud to support and endorse these four women and that is why People’s Party has a policy to legislate for political parties to amend their constitutions to have 50 percent of their endorsed candidates to be women.”

All four candidates have illustrious careers spanning from business, media, public service, charitable work and advocacy.

Bais took part in last year’s Moresby Northwest byelection under the same party, and said she was looking forward to assisting her sister candidates with her experiences.

She added that she looked forward to standing alongside her party of women candidates for the elections in NCD, and assisting each other in their campaign.

Sir Peter also challenged other political parties to “walk the talk” and endorse women candidates in this coming election.

Thierry Lepani is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Australian government has announced an A$170 million (F$267 million) programme for the Pacific region to strengthen gender equality initiatives over the next five years.

The commitment was revealed by Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Women Marise Payne during the high-level ministerial session at the 14th Triennial Conference of Pacific Women hosted by French Polynesia this week.

Payne said the programme reflected the importance of strengthening women’s leadership and would complement the work they were already engaged in with bilateral partners on gender and development.

“We’ll work in partnership with regional organisations and Pacific women’s funds and organisations. It’s a flexible programme designed to respond directly to partners’ needs,” she said.

“We want to build on our successes and learn from our experience. We’ll also focus on women’s rights, on safety, economic empowerment, on women’s health, including sexual and reproductive health.”

The challenges ahead for the Blue Continent included tackling the current pandemic and ensuring a sustainable future for the Pacific region, according to Payne.

“Addressing global challenges such as climate change requires us to use all of our resources and potential – that’s 100 percent of our populations,” she said.

Ensuring women’s safety
“If we ensure women’s economic security, we ensure their safety. We promote their health and wellbeing that’s not only of benefit to women and girls but to their entire communities.

“That’s one of the reasons Australia pivoted our development partnerships to better respond to the unique challenges posed by covid-19 through our partnerships for recovery strategy.”

She said they were working with Pacific partners to strengthen the region’s economic recovery, its health security and stability.

Australia has also partnered with regional stakeholders to deliver safe and effective vaccines as well as vaccine delivery.

These objectives, she said, could not be accomplished without first addressing the structural and cultural barriers that exclude and discriminate against women.

Fiji’s Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation Mereseini Vuniwaqa said the triennial conference and subsequent 7th Women’s Ministerial Meeting opening on Tuesday was an opportunity to be inspired, learn and recommit efforts towards accelerating and progress the goal of achieving gender equality through the endorsement of a bold, action-oriented, inclusive and transformative outcomes document.

“This is about reaffirming leadership, commitment along with concrete actions to prevent male violence against all women and girls before it starts,” she said.

Building back better
“It is acknowledging that, our work and efforts must address urgently the intersections between, women’s economic empowerment, unpaid care, safety, leadership, social protection and climate crisis preparedness and resilience.”

Vuniwaqa said recognising that building back better from covid-19 needed all women and girls at the centre, leading, making decisions that served the planet, addressed inequalities, and achieved equal power-sharing.

“It is also about recognising that data and statistics that adequately reflect the lived realities of all women and girls of the Pacific — gender statistics for short — are critical and indispensable tools for developing evidence-based policies, legislation and solutions to achieve gender equality and empowerment of all women and girls,” she said.

More than 1000 people participated in the conference, which ends tomorrow and delivered via a blended approach of in-person and virtual interaction given that travel restrictions are still being observed across the region due to the covid-19 pandemic.

The event was organised by the Pacific Community (SPC) with funding support provided by the Australian government and the Spotlight Initiative.

Josefa Babitu is a final-year student journalist at the University of the South Pacific (USP). He is also the current student editor for Wansolwara, USP Journalism’s student training newspaper and online publication. He a participant in the Reporting on Women’s Economic Empowerment workshop organised by the Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS) in collaboration with the Pacific Community (SPC).

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By EMTV News

Many wore black yesterday in rallies against gender-based violence in Papua New Guinea in a day chosen to remember the young mother Jenelyn Kennedy – and for her death not to be in vain.

As demands grow for justice to be served and for stronger laws to be introduced, the national athletics team was among those who joined the “Walk for Jenelyn” yesterday afternoon from Parliament to the Sir John Guise Stadium, followed by a “shine the light” vigil.

The “Black Day for Jenelyn” call following Jenelyn Kennedy’s death has gained momentum, thanks to social media as word spread quickly and many working class people turned up to support the march.

READ MORE: Dame Meg Taylor’s message to PNG and other gender-based violence reports

The march was also livestreamed on social media by EMTV News.

Photos posted on social media came from different parts of the country, from Mendi in the Southern Highlands to Kiunga in the Western Province.

The march was an initiative by the PNG Men Up, a group comprising like-minded elite PNG men who want an end to violence by working alongside existing groups to drive this change.

The family of 19-year-old mother of two Jenelyn Kennedy, who died last week after allegedly being beaten for more than five days, also joined the walk.

Forum on better laws
Police commissioner David Manning earlier this week revealed plans to call for a forum after investigations are completed to looks at ways to strengthen existing laws, ensure police are more responsive and to push for the state to provide long term support systems for victims of family and sexual violence.

The NGO Development Council called for justice and an end to violence and also highlighted system failures that lead to breeding of family and sexual violence.

It condemned a system that allowed underage marriage and failures in the law, justice and health sectors to recognise the risks.

NDC has called on the police, health sector agencies, medical profession and other law and justice system partners to work together to change these deadly system failures.

‘Fake news’ claim
The office of the police minister released a statement dismissing a post on Facebook page PNG Daily claiming the minister as author of a misleading statement as “fake news”.

PNG Daily published a story using Police Minister Bryan Kramer’s name as the author and headlined it “Kaiwi just returned from overseas, must be quarantined for 14 days”.

Kaiwi has been charged with wilful murder over the murder of his partner Jenelyn Kennedy.

Kramer said he had taken note of a number of posts on social media questioning why Bhosip Kaiwi was not remanded at Bomana on Tuesday, reports EMTV News.

“When tagged on the question, I commented that I can only assume it’s because he has to go through a 14-day quarantine before being admitted into the general population,” Kramer said.

“I also explained that had he contracted covid-19 and enters the prison system and it spreads infecting the prisoners, then the government would be forced to start releasing prisoners, which is exactly what happened overseas.

“Right now, we don’t know who has covid-19 and who doesn’t. Some people have symptoms and get tested, and some don’t show any symptoms.”

Kramer said he had been advised by National Capital District (NCD) metropolitan superintendent Perou N’Dranou that Kaiwi was not transferred to Bomana on Tuesday because the remand warrant was received late and that prisoners cannot be transferred after 4pm.

The minister added that his comments were made based on recorded covid-19 cases overseas in countries like USA, UK and Brazil where governments were releasing prisoners to avoid spreading the coronavirus.

Accused Kaiwi moved to Bomana
The National reports that Kaiwi was moved to the isolation centre at Bomana prison on Wednesday where he would be remanded.

Rebecca Kuku reports that Police Commissioner David Manning said the Correctional Services department had strict covid-19 quarantine protocols for new admissions such as Kaiwi.

“I am advised by Correction Service (CS) Commissioner Stephen Pokanis that detainees admitted to the Bomana prison will be isolated at its designated isolation centre for 14 days, prior to being released to the general prison facility,” he said.

He said the risk [of covid-19] was high in prison and warders were working with police and health officials to manage it as any spread in prison would be disastrous.

The Pacific Media Centre has a partnership with EMTV News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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.

This can be seen in the fact that much of the praise for their recent achievements is coming from mainstream or conservative sources, unlikely to vote for the party, while the Greens’ more traditional support base of environmentalists and leftwingers are less than impressed with their new realism and respectability.

This conundrum is very well conveyed in yesterday’s Herald column by Heather du Plessis-Allan, in which she argues the more moderate approach of current Green MPs in government could prove counterproductive: “There’s the ongoing risk that this mainstreaming could lose supporters. The idealistic, radical supporters in the party aren’t there to incrementally save the planet” – see: Emissions, electric vehicles, CGT – Greens make pragmatic decisions (paywalled).

Du Plessis-Allan argues that the Greens have achieved three important policy wins in the last two weeks: the inclusion of farmers into the Emissions Trading Scheme, the adoption of a subsidy scheme for climate-friendly vehicles, and “a reasonably sensible road safety package.” But, on the other hand, she points out that the MPs have also given up three of their election promises: “the commitment to making New Zealand’s electricity 100 per cent renewable”, a capital gains tax, and their “commitment to New Zealand remaining GM-free outside the lab”.

She predicts there will be major friction on the latter, as the notion “That GM is evil is one of the 10 commandments of true believers of green politics in New Zealand.”

Also published yesterday, was Thomas Coughlan’s interview with the party’s two co-leaders, which focuses on whether the moderate direction of the Greens is going to lead to the party struggling at next year’s election – see: After a dreadful 2017, can the Greens do better in 2020?

It’s on core issues such as climate change that some environmentalists have been very critical of the Greens and the Government. For example, former Green Party co-leader Russel Norman has become one of their biggest critics, consistently pointing out the shortcomings in their climate change policies, and especially on the latest initiative to bring farmers into the ETS but only charge them five per cent of their emission costs. For the latest on this, see Katie Fitzgerald’s Climate Change Minister James Shaw fine with making Greenpeace mad.

As an indication of the problem of the Greens getting praise from who they might consider the “wrong” people, see John Armstrong’s recent opinion piece, in which he praises the party for its “new era of realism”, despite disagreeing with their spokesperson on foreign affairs and defence – see: Just as Greens start to shed ‘loony left’ rep, Golriz Ghahraman sets them back.

Armstrong argues that Russel Norman actually laid the groundwork for the party’s shift to the mainstream. And the infamous departure of co-leader Metiria Turei “swung the balance in favour of a more pragmatic modus operandi if only for the reason that the Greens’ very survival was suddenly at stake. What might be termed as a new era of realism helped condition the party to the compromises and concessions that its hierarchy accepted would be the necessary price to be paid in becoming a junior partner” in the Labour-led Government.”

He says “The Greens’ motto since then has been simple. The party can live with trade-offs.”

Similarly, on Friday Peter Dunne published a blog post praising the Greens’ moderation in Government, but warning it could weaken them – see: Greens timidity and impotence in government may see them neutered as a political force.

Dunne says that the expectations of the political right that the Greens would be a radical disaster in government has been proved wrong: “Rather than being extreme and wacky, the Greens, on the whole, have been responsible and mainstream. In part, this is due to the Greens’ leadership – particularly James Shaw who is both personable and reasonable – and Ministers like Eugenie Sage and Julie-Anne Genter keeping pretty much to the middle of the government’s road”.

Dunne says that the Green’s more middle class support base is therefore now more entrenched, but the party is in danger of losing the radicals: “their challenge is to appear radical enough to continue to attract the support and activism of the more hard-line environmental idealists on whom they have relied for so long. The Greens’ responsibility in government will be sorely testing their patience. This, coupled with the now traditional loss of support all government support parties suffer, means the Greens can no longer take their presence in the next Parliament for granted, the way they were used to before 2017.”

He foresees disillusionment setting in: “The question that now raises is how much more humiliation the Greens’ rank and file membership will be prepared to accept before walking away altogether, and simply transferring their support to Labour. Some will stay the course, appreciating that saving the Green brand ranks higher than temporary achievements in government, but others will become more disillusioned, and will start to question whether being part of government is actually worth it, or whether it is doing more harm than good.”

Therefore, the party’s upcoming annual conference in just over two weeks could be difficult for Green MPs and the party leadership. Due to possible rifts, and party activists potentially raising difficult questions and challenges to MPs, the conference has been closed off to the public and media. The NBR’s Brent Edwards reports that journalists won’t be allowed into the annual general meeting being held in Dunedin except to report on the co-leaders’ set-piece speeches and to “attend the ‘world café,’ whatever that is, with MPs and party members at 2pm” on the Sunday – see: Greens’ transparency doesn’t extend to opening their conference (paywalled).

Edwards is disappointed with the decision, and says it goes against the Green’s supposed belief in open democracy and the need for fostering political participation. He says the public should demand more from the Greens, and “political parties expecting their votes and taking their money should be open to wider and deeper scrutiny”.

He raises the question of whether the party has become simply another political machine like traditional parties – in which it’s “all about controlling the message”. Edwards suggests the Green Party is now in the thrall of “political strategists” for whom “playing the game of politics is all about leverage and setting the narrative, or spin, to their party’s advantage. It is not about informed debate nor about democratic inclusion.”

In another article, Brent Edwards reports that even within the party leadership there is some discontent with the way their own government is going – with co-leader Marama Davidson not entirely buying the “Wellbeing Budget”. She gives it a rating of only six out of ten, believing “it was neither transformational nor bold enough” – see: Green Party calls for bolder action in next year’s budget (paywalled).

This article reports that the party will be pushing for more: “In next year’s budget the Greens would be arguing for more money for beneficiaries, more public housing and to deliver on its confidence and supply agreement to set up a rent-to-own scheme.”

Similarly, yesterday Anna Bracewell-Worrall reported that the Greens still want welfare benefit levels increased, and seem to believe that Labour may have breached its coalition agreement in not increasing benefit levels already – see: Greens call out Labour over failure to increase benefits.

Finally, in contrast to some of the moderation currently on display in the Greens, in the weekend, the “rising star” of the Green caucus, Chloe Swarbrick has outlined her own radical politics and what she thinks her party is about, saying “Fundamentally the Greens are about economics, and that is what I am really interested in”, and “I think it’s been lost a bit because our name is Green and our colour is green, that we are fundamentally focused on dismantling an economic system that exploits both people and the planet” – see Mike Houlahan’s Fire in the belly drives young MP. She also says that she might not stand again for Parliament next year.

by Dr Bryce Edwards

Is the National Party’s latest online advert deliberately designed to provoke a backlash from liberal opponents? And is National trying to feed the fire of a growing culture war in New Zealand? It’s seems so, and the party’s desired result is being achieved.

The taxpayer-funded 30-second video was launched on social media on Wednesday. You can see the ad about KiwiBuild here on Twitter: They’re all sizzle, no sausage. So far, it’s had 48,800 views on this single tweet.

The piece of advertising propaganda was immediately attacked by opponents as being sexist, particularly because it incorporated some backward gender stereotypes, with a young woman being lectured to about the failures of KiwiBuild by a young man being condescending. Some labelled it “man-splaining”.

Most prominently, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern correctly pointed out that the ads looked like they came from the 1970s, referring to their backward nature. But she was careful not to take too much of the bait, saying “I think if people see the ad they can make their own judgement on it”.

Others have been readier to express condemnation and even outrage. For example, the Minister of Women’s Affairs, Julie-Anne Genter attacked it as a portrayal of a gullible woman being mansplained to by two patronising males.

Plenty of other commentators have condemned the ad – today the Herald’s Damien Venuto wrote about how the woman in the ad was “the literal embodiment of every dated blonde joke ever told” – see: The mistake National keeps making in its terrible ads. He warns the party that they are stepping “into a giant advertising turd by belittling a large portion of the voting public: namely women.”

Venuto predicts that the ads will backfire, giving Labour an electoral advantage: “These ads reinforce the notion that National is the old, rich party, looking to maintain the power dynamics that have long existed in New Zealand society. If anything, it gives Labour further impetus to reinvigorate the smart unifying message delivered in its previous election campaign.”

There has been widespread criticism. Linda Clark tweeted sarcastically, “Policy is complicated. I needed a man to help me understand it”. Another posted: “I am actually in furious tears over how sexist that National ad is. Blatantly, explicitly, intentionally sexist. How are we meant to move away from a culture of violence towards women when our political rhetoric expressly permits this?” – see: National Party’s KiwiBuild attack ad comes under fire as sexist and incorrect.

But was all this negative reaction actually exactly what the National Party was seeking? Commentator Danyl Mclauchlan admits that it might be a “grand conspiracy theory”, but that this is “exactly what they wanted to happen”. He wrote an article yesterday arguing “Progressives are actually the primary target for this ad and it is designed to offend them. Offense and controversy makes things newsworthy and earns you coverage in the mainstream media, thus potentially reaching a far greater number of viewers” – see: Notes towards a grand unified theory of the terrible National Party sausage ad.

Quite clearly the strategy has worked, with National’s ad gaining huge amounts of media coverage. In this regard, Mclauchlan argues that it’s a clever attack advertising strategy, which has some parallels with the operating style of the US President: “This is Trump’s great innovation in political marketing: you don’t need to pay for advertising you just repeatedly outrage progressives, especially those who work in the media, and they’ll give you all the free coverage you could hope for.”

Mclauchlan concludes: “Presumably there will be more: maybe the next shocking thing will be the next National Party ad, giving online progressives the chance to spend the whole year furiously amplifying National’s talking points.”

Could National’s strategy actually therefore be primarily designed – not just to get more attention, as Mclaughlan argues – but also to push the party’s liberal opponents into furthering their reputation as being obsessed by being “politically correct” or “woke”?

This is what I argued this morning on Newstalk ZB, saying “Most supporters of National will just see this ad and think ‘oh National is criticising KiwiBuild’, whereas National’s opponents read much more into it, they’ve seen it and been provoked by it and fallen into the trap” – see: People outraged over ‘sexist’ National attack ad have ‘fallen into trap’.

Essentially National’s strategy is a highly cynical attempt at a type of “reverse dog whistle politics” – because their own base and the voters they are trying to win over don’t pick up on any underlying offensiveness of the advertisement, but opponents do and they react accordingly. As I explain on Newstalk ZB, “Many others fell into the trap, gave it publicity and called it out and for a lot of New Zealanders they would have seen the ad and thought it just seems like a silly ad and thought the complaints about it… were a bit over the top.”

Therefore, a “cringe-worthy and clumsy” ad manages to feed into, and thrive off, the growing culture wars in New Zealand. Because the context in which National has launched this ad is one of 1) heightened sensitivity towards social justice, sexism, and gender politics, and 2) a reaction against such “woke” politics, with a lot of frustration and abhorrence at social justice progressives and their outrage.

Hence, National Party deputy leader, Paula Bennett has been able to come out and defend the ads, strongly positioning her party as in opposition to “outrage culture”. She has been reported as saying that “it’s easy to find offence if you’re looking for it”, and people need to “lighten up”.

On RNZ, Bennett “was asked if she thought young, blonde women need government policy explained to them by men” and she responded: “Oh, no more than fat brown ones or any other male that I might know or anyone else. It’s got nothing to do with gender it’s got nothing to do with hair colour it’s got nothing to do with any of that sort of thing” – see: Paula Bennett defends ‘no sausage’ mansplaining ad on KiwiBuild.

This article also points out that National’s male MPs were being put under pressure in Parliament and by the media, essentially being quizzed as to whether they are sexist and whether they “mansplained”. National was probably quite happy about this narrative of their MPs being under attack.

And if they were any doubt that this “woke-provoking” strategy was being used, then it’s worth noting that National’s pollster David Farrar blogged to say: “National will be delighted that woke activists on Twitter are so stupid they managed to get all this free publicity for the advertisement” – see: Woke activists fall into trap.

Newstalk ZB’s political editor Barry Soper has also viewed National’s ad as being designed to provoke a strong reaction from opponents: “Today it’s the talk of the town, mainly because these days everyone’s so politically sensitive, careful about what they say for fear of causing offence and National knows it. Which is why the ad’s had the impact it has” – see: National’s Kiwibuild ad the talk of the town. On National’s strategy, Soper says “It’s brilliant and it’s had the desired effect: getting everyone fired up and the public talking.”

Also at Newstalk ZB, Heather du Plessis-Allan has come out strongly against the ad, saying “it’s a clever ad. But it’s disappointing” – see: Make no mistake, National’s BBQ attack ad is sexist.

Not only does du Plessis-Allan draw attention to the backward gender stereotypes in the ad and the “mansplaining”, but also to the apparent use of sausages in the ad as a putdown of the Labour Party and Jacinda Ardern: “The sausage is a phallic symbol FYI. If that sounds too conspiratorial to you, you’re being naive. This is an effective political ad and effective political ads almost always contain some sort of subtle dog-whistle. And very little in such an ad is an accident. The sausage is deliberate.”

Nonetheless, the impact seems to be working – with a backlash building against the advert complainants. The Herald reports the following readers’ comments with examples of people cheering on the ads: “PC gone mad”, “Bloody brilliant” and “People need to get over themselves” – see: ‘People need to get over themselves’: Swell of support for National’s ‘sexist’ BBQ ad.

Finally, National’s attack conjures up memories of other attack ads run by the party in the past, and the classic to watch is their 1975 Dancing Cossacks video.