From heavy visa bonds to suspended applications to straight-up travel bans, the United States has implemented or announced sweeping restrictions on Pacific travel in just the first two weeks of 2026.

Confirmed on Thursday, Fiji is among a list of 75 countries for which the US will suspend the issue of migration visas next week from January 21.

The suspension does not apply to non-immigrant visas, such as for tourism or business.

At the same time, many Pacific Island countries will now have to pay bonds of up to US$15,000 to enter the country on a temporary visa.

And two weeks ago, The Guardian reported a complete freeze on all visa applications for Tongan citizens had come into force, impacting a community of around 79,000 Tongan Americans, according to latest estimates.

What happened?
A leaked State Department memo said the government was targeting nationalities more likely to require public assistance while living in the US.

“The Trump administration is bringing an end to the abuse of America’s immigration system by those who would extract wealth from the American people,” the US State Department said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

“Immigrant visa processing from these 75 countries will be paused while the State Department reassess immigration processing procedures to prevent the entry of foreign nationals who would take welfare and public benefits.”

In terms of travel restrictions, it puts these pacific island nations in league with the likes of Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, Somalia, and even Venezuela.

Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has gone as far as to tell the Fiji Sun on Friday that his nation “brought it on ourselves.”

“We rank very highly. They are illegal immigrants. They are there without authority and must be dealt with according to the law of the United States.” Rabuka said.

“We have to take the bull by the horns and make sure we comply with the new rules that will be placed on us.”

Who has been impacted?
Fijians, Tongans, Tuvaluans and Ni-Vans. Tongans most of all.

The suspension took out B-1 (Business), B-2 (Tourist), F (Student), M (Vocational), and J (Exchange Visitor) visas, but it left the door open for existing holders, as well as these exceptions:

• Immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran
• Dual nationals applying with a passport of a nationality not subject to a suspension
• Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) for some US government employees
• Participants in certain major sporting events
• Existing Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs)

Though the US State Department has remained tight-lipped about its reasons for targeting Tonga in particular, White House releases have pointed to high overstay rates, and concerns around Citizenship By Investment (CBI) passport schemes that lack secure background checking.

This would implicate Tonga, which may be developing a CBI scheme of their own, along with countries like Vanuatu and Nauru.

As for Fiji, immigration visas are off the table, but visitor visa categories are still open.

The two countries, alongside Tuvalu and Vanuatu, are on a list of countries included in the new US Visa Bond Pilot Programme, requiring a US$10,000 visa bond, a significant personal cost for a developing state.

Those bonds could be increased or decreased per application based on personal circumstances, with a cap of US$15,000.

What’s the logic?
Core to the Trump Administration’s philosophy towards migration is that those who enter the US (legally, that is) need to be able to pay their own way.

Based on social media activity, one of the many benchmarks for this standard could be the extent to which migrant households depend on US institutions, such as welfare, healthcare and other forms of support.

In a post on Truth Social on January 7, Trump released a chart detailing how often these households receive welfare and public assistance in the US.

Several Pacific nations featured highly on Trump’s chart, with the Marshall Islands ranking fourth on the list at 71.4 percent.

Other Pacific countries include Samoa at 63.4, Federated States of Micronesia at 58.1, Tonga at 54.4, and Fiji at 40.8.

American Samoa, a US territory, featured at 42.9 percent.

By the numbers
All the same, Pacific Islanders make up a relatively minor percentage of the immigrant population. The US Migration Policy Institute estimates that, as of 2023 there are 166,389 immigrants currently in the US who were born in Oceania (other than Australia and New Zealand).

On those estimates, islanders would make up 0.3 percent of foreign-born Americans. So while Trump’s figures may create the impression of big-league dole bludging, it is really a fraction of the overall picture.

All the same, it is not as though the US is not guilty of sweeping up Pacific states onto migrant ban lists that ought not be there.

Take Tuvalu for instance: in July they were included on a list of countries where visa bans were being strongly considered . . . by accident.

The microstate sought and obtained written assurance from the US that this was a mistake, to which the US pointed to “an administrative and systemic error on the part of the US Department of State”.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A former National MP has launched a petition calling for “equality and respect” in New Zealand’s immigration visa treatment of Pacific Islanders, saying “many are shocked when they learn the truth”.

In a full page advertisement in The New Zealand Herald newspaper today, Anae Arthur Anae condemned the New Zealand government’s visa settings that discriminated against Pacific peoples visiting the country and recalled the “dark days of the Dawn Raids“.

The petition calls on the government to allow Pacific people to enter New Zealand on a three-month visitor visa issued on arrival.

“While 90 percent of New Zealanders value and respect the contribution that Pacific peoples have made to this beautiful nation, most are unaware of the unfair treatment we continue to face,” Anae declared.

“Many are shocked when they learn the truth.”

“Currently, citizens from 60 countries aroundn the world — representing a combined population of 1.65 billion peopole — can arrive at any New Zealand airport and receive a three-month visitor visa arrival, free of charge,” he said.

“In contrast, the 16 Pacific Island Forum nations, with a total population of fewer than 16 million, are denied this privilege.

‘Lengthy, expensive’ process
Anae, who recently discussed his proposal on Radio Samoa, said that instead Pacific people needed to go through a “lengthy and expensive” visa application process — “preventing many from attending family funerals, emergencies, graduations and other important family events”.

Until recently, he said, New Zealand’s Immigration Office in Samoa had been open for just an hour a day, “serving over 200,000 people with deep family and historical ties to New Zealand”.

Anae said this lack of accessibility was “unacceptable for nations bound to New Zealand through treaties of friendship and shared sacrifice”.

Former MP Anae Arthur Anae discusses his petition with Radio Samoa.

“Let us reflect: Is this how we treat nations who have stood beside New Zealand through war, loss and shared history?” he said.

“We have shown loyalty, worked hard to build this country since the 1940s, and contributed immensely to its growth. Yet, we were once hunted in the dark days of the Dawn Raids, a shameful chapter that should never be repeated.

“Pacific peoples have proven time and again that, when given the opportunity, we can achieve and contribute equally to anyone else.”

The petition has received at least 24,000 signatures and closes on November 7.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An increasing proportion of New Zealand’s immigrants are foreign citizens. In the 2010s – especially the later 2010s – a critical driver of immigration had been returning New Zealand citizens. As the headlines have indicated, that process of sourcing immigrants from the New Zealand diaspora has long finished.

Where have New Zealand’s post-covid immigrants come from? The following table shows immigration from the 31 countries which Statistics New Zealand follows. The estimates for the years-ended-August have just been released.

We note that not all intended migrations to New Zealand are successful. Most immigrants arrive on non-residence visas, and then have to apply for permanent residence or other long-stay visas. Unsuccessful immigrations arise both from failures to secure the desired permission, or from immigrants themselves having second thoughts. There are two possible outcomes of unsuccessful immigration: return migration, or onward migration.

Onward migration may take place following immigrants’ success in gaining New Zealand passports. But that is not unsuccessful immigration, and it’s not shown here. The data below looks at the 12-month period ending August 2023, and deducts the migrant departures for each nationality in the following 12 months (ending August 2024). For comparison, the table also shows 12-month period ending August 2024, deducting the migrant departures for each nationality in the 12 months ending August 2025.

These data are estimates for successful immigration (as defined above) by migrants’ nationalities:

It turns out that Philippines is the 2023 ‘winner’. Philippines consistently has few return or onward migrants. We note that the Philippines’ number dropped more in 2024 compared to India, probably reflecting the larger numbers of Indian migrants who arrived as tertiary students.

Two other stand-out immigrant countries – relative to their source populations – are Sri Lanka and Nepal.

The dominant groups of countries are our Pacific neighbours (Oceania); and South and East Asia. In this context we should note that a substantial majority of immigrants from Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia are ethnic ‘Austronesians’, the same broad ethnic group as our indigenous Māori and most of our Oceanian immigrants. Immigrants from Philippines are a particularly good fit, because of their similar Christian culture and because they are ethnic cousins of indigenous Aotearoans.

That’s not to say that any other national group is a bad fit. Most of our immigrants seek to integrate sufficiently to become Kiwis, without being under pressure to assimilate into Euro-Kiwi norms. Interestingly, of the six top immigrant-source countries, New Zealand only has direct flights with two: China and Fiji.

We note that the richer Asian nations feature well down the list. And we note the disproportionately low representation of nationalities with mainly Muslim populations. Indonesia, with 2½ times the population of Philippines has only 2½ percent of the Philippines’ successful immigration. Indonesia, our near-invisible near-neighbour, is the fourth most populous country in the world, and may well have more people than the United States by 2050.

With slightly more immigrants than from Indonesia is Pakistan, the world’s fifth most populous country, and a country with strong sporting links to New Zealand. But Pakistan is way below India in the above table. A surprising omission from the table is Bangladesh, the world’s eighth most populous country, with more residents than Russia (the world’s number nine). Bangladesh does have a significant community in New Zealand, including my GP doctor. I suspect that Bangladeshis feature strongly in the ‘other Asia’ category, along with Cambodians who continue to operate small bakeries in Aotearoa New Zealand. Another country of importance missing from the list is Singapore, whose airline does bring many if not most of our South Asian immigrants.

Other countries not mentioned so far in the world’s top-ten by population are Brazil, Nigeria, and Mexico. Of these only Brazil features in the table above, although Nigeria may well have a significant presence in ‘other’, and Mexico has had some high-profile immigrants to Aotearoa New Zealand. Brazilian immigration, which appears to be dropping off, may return once China Eastern commences flights from Auckland to Buenos Aires.

We see the richer countries in Europe and the Americas (traditional sources of immigration), and Australia, feature in the bottom half of the ‘Top-31′; much more so for 2024 than for 2023. We note that the negative numbers in 2024 mean that more people with those countries’ passports departed in 2025 than arrived in 2024.

Ukraine doesn’t feature, though it might be a major part of ‘other Europe’. Czechia, which I am surprised Stats NZ have included, may be taken as a proxy for Eastern Europe. Also, ‘other Africa’ has held up while South African successful immigration has halved.

The data all reinforces the fact that New Zealand is a demographic turnover country, with the momentum of immigration coming from much poorer non-Muslim countries, and with a significant outflow of richer-country migrants.

For some up-to-date perspective, the table below shows estimated immigration for the featured countries in the year to August 2025. It shows an increase in migrant arrivals from some richer countries, such as United States, Australia, Japan, Germany and France; however, it is likely that similar numbers of these nationalities will leave New Zealand in the next 12 months as arrived in the previous 12 months. Many from France will actually be from New Caledonia; from Oceania rather than from Europe.

Finally, total arrivals of foreigner immigrants were 201,950 in the year to August 2023; 142,661 in the year to August 2024; and 112,591 in the year to August 2025; much lower than immediately post-covid, but still high. Total departures of foreigner immigrants were 35,972 in the year to August 2023; 46,099 in the year to August 2024; and 54,092 in the year to August 2025.

So, in the last year, foreigner migrant departures from New Zealand had reached almost half of foreigner migrant arrivals. This suggests that, for many, immigration to New Zealand is a fraught and often unsuccessful experience.

*******

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.

The following tables represent an update of mortality by sex in relation to Table 2 from Decennial Increases in Deaths by Birth Cohort, in Aotearoa New Zealand.

By looking at deaths registered in February to May only, it is possible to extend trends into 2025, avoiding fluctuations arising from winter illnesses.

The numbers look at people born over a ten-year period and the percentage increase in deaths in a given recent year compared to ten-years earlier. I am most interested in the ‘generations’ born between 1935 and 1990. The oldest generation/cohort shown will not have many more deaths than ten years earlier, because more than half have already died before the age of ninety. For younger generations, only a small minority have already died, meaning that a population can be readily compared with its younger self.

Results are unreliable for people under 25, because too few of them die to reveal any patterns.

Typically, at least for working-age adults – defining working age here to mean about 25 to about 75 – a birth cohort will normally have about 100% more deaths in a given year (eg 2020) compared to ten years previously. We can see that in the Male table below, by looking at the 2010-2020 column, and by looking at the 1935-45+ row.

If we look at the first highlighted figure of 98.3%, it means that 98.3% more men born from 1945 to 1954 died in 2020 than in 2010. The next figure in that row says that 100.2% more men born from 1946 to 1955 died in 2021 than in 2011. The last figure for that row says that 119.4% more men born from 1950 to 1959 died in 2025 than in 2015. (Noting again, that these data are for February to May only.)

This decade we have observed some problematic increases in deaths for men born between 1955 and 1980. (I would rate any number over 120% as ‘problematic’.)

For Females, these increases in death numbers over ten years for a generation/cohort are even more concerning; though it remains true that fewer working-age females are dying than working-age males. It’s more that women are catching up to men. As with men, it is those women born between 1955 and 1980 where the greatest concern lies.

While I’ll leave these data for others to interpret further, the numbers tend to bely the mantra we hear from the finance industry and many politicians that “we are all living longer”. The aging process seems to be coming earlier for people born after 1955 than for people born before that year. (It’s too early to say whether this conclusion about ‘Gen-X’ will also apply to ‘Gen-Y’. While Gen-Y men, born after 1975, seem to be doing OK so far, data for Gen-Y females is not looking too good.)

A final point to note is that Aotearoa’s working-age population is particularly affected by immigration and emigration. The numbers given here will be distorted if, for any cohort within that ten-year period of comparison, there was a marked difference in emigration compared to immigration. We should note, however, that both immigrants and emigrants (to and from Aotearoa New Zealand) tend to be healthier than average for their birth cohorts. Thus, data of this type – which does not rely on population denominators – can reveal subtle truths which may otherwise remain hidden.

Ultimately, societal problems – such as inequality, insecure housing, over- and under-work – all do have an impact on average lifespan at least as much (if not more) than the state of a country’s healthcare services. Actuarial methods of measuring lifespan are lagging indicators of the health of a national population. And they can be problematic in this country, because so many people who will die in New Zealand were not born here; and vice versa.

My tables are forward-looking rather than backward-looking. They warn of trouble ahead, especially in relation to those people born in the 1970s and 1980s. We may note the following: What researchers suspect may be fuelling cancer among millennials (Washington Post article, published in NZ Herald on 30 September 2025).

*******

Data is from Statistics New Zealand, Births and deaths: Year ended June 2025. That data series only begins in 2010.

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.

By William Camacaro

New York

One of the casualties of Washington’s get-tough immigration policy is the plight of children separated by U.S. authorities from their parents. The political party of “family values” has caused needless trauma for these migrant children and round the clock anxiety for parents desperately waiting to be reunited with their loved ones. 

The Venezuelan government, which has a longstanding policy–vuelta a la patria–of assisting the repatriation of their citizens– has reported that at least 66 children have been illegally held  in the United States since their parents were deported to Venezuela. At this writing the author has been unable to obtain information as to their circumstances or whereabouts. 

The most well-known case of a Venezuelan child held in the U.S. after her mother was deported is that of a two-year-old girl, Maikelys Espinoza. After an international campaign brought her plight to light, the United States repatriated Maikelys to Caracas on May 14, 2025 returning her to her mother’s embrace. Today, families’ pleas for the return of their children recall her story and have stirred the sympathy of the Venezuelan public.

This situation recalls the case of Cuban citizen Elián González, who, as a child, was known as “the raft boy,” and found himself at the center of a major international incident in 2000. He was found adrift on an inner tube after the boat carrying him, his mother, and other migrants en route from Cuba to the United States capsized. The child’s custody became the subject of a dispute between his father in Cuba (who was offered money by the U.S. to come and live here) and his relatives in Miami. The case caused an international uproar, filled with legal and media battles between Cuban and North American authorities. He was finally reunited with his father on June 28, 2000. Today Elián is a leading voice for resistance to more than a half a century of economic warfare waged by Washington against the Caribbean island.

The present case is also fraught with political complications. Given Washington’s antipathy toward the Bolivarian revolution, President Maduro’s administration has been under relentless attack since 2013, having to endure threats of direct military intervention, fanciful accusations of drug trafficking, and a previously unheard-of bounty of $50 million for the arrest of  Venezuela’s president. Despite these threats, Caracas has remained steadfast in defending Venezuelan migrants and seeking the return of all of the children who are being held in the United States against the will of their families.

So far, 21 children have been repatriated to Venezuela. This is in addition to the 252 Venezuelan migrants who were deported by the United States to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador and released on July 18 after a humanitarian exchange. According to government official Camilla Fabri Saab, Deputy Minister of International Communication of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry and leader of the campaign to bring the children home, more than 10,631 Venezuelan migrants have been repatriated so far this year.

Each day that these children are separated from their families robs them of parental love during their formative years. For both the minors and their families time is of the essence. Accordingly, Caracas persists in demanding that they be reunited with their families, calling demonstrations and orchestrating a broad media campaign across official outlets.

A group of parents has issued the following open letter addressed to the First Lady, Melania Trump

Open Letter Page 1

Open Letter Page 2

Open Letter Page 3

William Camacaro is a  Senior Analyst for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA). He is a co-founder of  the Venezuela solidarity network and holds a Master’s Degree of Fine Arts and a Master’s Degree in Latin American Literature from City University of New York. He has published in the Monthly Review, Counterpunch, COHA, the Afro-America Magazine, Ecology, Orinoco Tribune and other venues. He has organized delegations to Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela.

Banner Photo: Credit – María Isabel Batista/Ultimas Noticias

Photo: Elián González, Reunited with his father in Cuba. Credit – Granma

Yesterday I listened to RNZ’s political commentators. The principal topic was an aspect of the recently released May 2025 international migration. Kathryn Ryan starts by reminding us of the “old saying, would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights” (a saying which has been used in places other than Godzone).

The latest figure for net immigration was an inflow of 14,800; a net gain. But you wouldn’t have realised this. Ryan went on to say there’s a big migration outflow underway right now. And she’s correct if you only count New Zealand citizens. (Non-NZ citizens are people too; indeed, in that timeframe, 53,400 non-NZ citizens emigrated!)

Kathryn Ryan said there was a net loss of 30,000. There was actually a (provisional) net loss of 46,300 NZ citizens. (Possibly she – or her producer – had subtracted the all-migrant net inflow from the net loss of New Zealand citizens, having interpreted the overall 14,800 net inflow as a net inflow of non-NZ citizens.) In fact, this 46,300 net loss of NZ citizens was offset by a net gain of 61,100 non-NZ citizens.

(We should also note that total arrivals – not just people classified as ‘immigrants’ – in the year to May 2025 exceeded total departures by 3,797; less than the 14,800 ascribed to net international migration. The sum of total net arrivals in the six years to May 2025 was 244,000; an average of 40,000 per year.)

The total number of people who featured (in the period from June 2024 to May 2025) as either immigrants or emigrants was 264,000; that is, a number of people equivalent to five percent of New Zealand’s total population featured as either a permanent arrival or a permanent departure. This 264,000 includes 114,500 “migrant arrivals of non-NZ citizens”. Half of the 114,500 estimated permanent arrivals of non-NZ citizens were citizens of either India, China, Philippines or Sri Lanka.

In addition to getting the numbers wrong, a key problem with the framing of the RNZ migration discussion is that it rendered invisible these citizens of Asian countries; as people of Asian birth have been largely invisible in our intense discussions in recent years on binationalism. This gaze aversion by the political class is a kind of passive or casual racism. It is ethnicism to simply ignore the new New Zealanders who provide so much of our labour, and who generally perform their labour roles with professionalism and competence.

An important aspect of this problem is to ignore the ‘mammoth in the room’, that there is in Aotearoa New Zealand a substantial substitution of New Zealand born residents for non-New Zealand born residents; white citizens are leaving, brown denizens are arriving. In these latest statistics, for the year to May, there were 61,100 more new New Zealanders and 46,300 fewer old New Zealanders; 61,100 minus -46,300 equals 107,400. 100,000 is two percent of five million.

So, if 70% of New Zealand residents were NZ-born in May 2024, then about 68% of New Zealand residents will have been NZ-born in May 2025. (Just under 30 percent of New Zealanders were born overseas in March 2023, according to Statistics New Zealand.) The rate of ‘replacement’ is probably not quite that great, in that some of the citizens leaving permanently will have been naturalised rather than born in Aotearoa New Zealand. Another complicating factor is natural population growth – the excess of births over deaths – which was just over 20,000 in 2024. It would appear that about one-third of births in New Zealand (maybe more) are to mothers not themselves born in New Zealand.

Population ‘Replacement’ is a sensitive subject. The ‘far right’ in much of the Eurocentric world indulges in ‘replacement theory’, a conspiracy theory that there is a liberal “elite” (sometimes “Jewish”) agenda to replace ‘whites’ with ‘non-whites’. (There used to be a comparable case on the ‘far-left’, whereby ‘globalisation’ was interpreted as an agenda rather than a description.) The descriptive reality of today’s world is that there are disproportionately more – and substantially so – ‘brown’ and ‘black’ young people than their proportion among older age cohorts.

White people are diminishing, and non-white people are increasing in numbers. That’s not a problem. But it is perceived as a problem by many white people, especially disadvantaged white people in the economically polarised Euro world. If we tip-toe around this issue of changing global ethnic proportions, we leave the field to ‘replacement theory’ conspiracy theorists. We need to have adult conversations about the implications not just of aging populations, but also the re-culturation of our populations through demographic change.

Applying this last matter to Aotearoa New Zealand, a nation state with rapid population turnover, the overall national ‘personality’ can be largely retained so long as immigrants come from a wide range of other countries. When I was in Sydney last year, I heard a story about the emergence of India’s ‘caste system’ in Australia. This is the kind of cultural change that we do not want in New Zealand; such cultural colonisation can be averted by avoiding too much immigration from a single country. And through a process of cultural fusion, rather than either assimilation or the emergence of cultural silos.

*******

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.

In a fervent appeal to the global community, Prime Minister James Marape of Papua New Guinea has called on US President Donald Trump to “rethink” his decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and current global climate initiatives.

Marape’s plea came during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting held in Davos, Switzerland, on 23 January 2025.

Expressing deep concern for the impacts of climate change on Papua New Guinea and other vulnerable Pacific Island nations, Marape highlighted the dire consequences these nations face due to rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather patterns.

“The effects of climate change are not just theoretical for us; they have real, devastating impacts on our fragile economies and our way of life,” he said.

The Prime Minister emphasised that while it was within President Trump’s prerogative to prioritise American interests, withdrawing the United States — the second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide– from the Paris Agreement without implementing measures to curtail coal power production was “totally irresponsible”, Marape said.

“As a leader of a major forest and ocean nation in the Pacific region, I urge President Trump to reconsider his decision.”

He went on to point out the contradiction in the US stance.

US not closing coal plants
“The United States is not shutting down any of its coal power plants yet has chosen to withdraw from critical climate efforts. This is fundamentally irresponsible.

“The science regarding our warming planet is clear — it does not lie,” he said.

Marape further articulated that as the “Leader of the Free World,” Trump had a moral obligation to engage with global climate issues.

PNG Prime Minister James Marape’s plea to President Trump.  Video: PNGTV

“It is morally wrong for President Trump to disregard the pressing challenges of climate change.

He must articulate how he intends to address this critical issue,” he added, stressing that effective global leaders had a responsibility not only to their own nations but also to the planet as a whole.

In a bid to advocate for small island nations that are bearing the brunt of climate impacts, PM Marape announced plans to bring this issue to the upcoming Pacific Islands Forum (PIF).

He hopes to unify the voices of PIF member countries in a collective statement regarding the US withdrawal from climate negotiations.

US revived Pacific relations
“The United States has recently revitalised its relations with the Pacific. It is discouraging to see it retreating from climate discussions that significantly affect our region’s efforts to mitigate climate change,” he said.

Prime Minister Marape reminded the international community that while larger nations might have the capacity to withstand extreme weather events such as typhoons, wildfires, and tornadoes, smaller nations like Papua New Guinea could not endure such impacts.

“For us, every storm and rising tide represents a potential crisis. Big nations can afford to navigate these challenges, but for us, the stakes are incredibly high,” he said.

Marape’s appeal underscores the urgent need for collaborative and sustained global action to combat climate change, particularly for nations like Papua New Guinea, which are disproportionately affected by environmental change.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

People get ready
There’s a train a-coming
You don’t need no baggage
You just get on board
All you need is faith
To hear the diesels humming
Don’t need no ticket
You just thank the Lord

Songwriter: Curtis Mayfield

You might have seen Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s speech at the National Prayer Service in the United States following Trump’s elevation to the highest worldly position, or perhaps read about it in the news.

It’s well worth watching this short clip of her sermon if you haven’t, as the rest of this newsletter is about that and the reaction to it:

‘May I ask you to have mercy Mr President.’       Video: C-Span

I found the sermon courageous, heartfelt, and, above all, decent. It felt like there was finally an adult in the room again. Predictably, Trump and his vile little Vice-President responded like naughty little boys being reprimanded, reacting with anger at being told off in front of all their little mates.

That response will not have surprised the Bishop. As she prepared to deliver the end of her sermon, you could see her pause to collect her thoughts. She knew she would be criticised for what she was about to say, yet she had the courage to speak it regardless.

What followed was heartfelt and compelling, as the Bishop talked of the fears of LGBT people and immigrants.

She spoke of them as if they were human beings like the rest of us, saying they pay their taxes, are not criminals, and are good neighbours.

The president did not want to hear her message. His anger was building as his snivelling sidekick looked toward him to see how the big chief would respond.

Vented on social media
So, how did the leader of the free world react? Did he take it on the chin, appreciating that he now needed to show leadership for all, or did he call the person asking him to show compassion — “nasty”?

That’s right, it was the second one. I’m afraid there’s no prize for that as you’re all excluded due to inside knowledge of that kind of behaviour from observing David Seymour. The ACT leader responds in pretty much the same way when someone more intelligent and human points out the flaws in his soul.

Donald then went on his own Truth social media platform, which he set up before he’d tamed the Tech Oligarchs, and vented, “The so-called bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a radical left hard-line Trump hater”.

Which isn’t very polite, but when you think about it, his response should be seen as a badge of honour. Especially for someone of the Christian faith because all those who follow the teachings of Christ ought to be “radical left hard-line Trump haters”, or else they’ve rather missed the point. Don’t you think?

Certainly, pastor and activist John Pavlovitz thought so, saying, “Christians who voted for him, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Of course, if you were capable of shame, you’d never have voted for him to begin with.”

I thought it was a bit rich for a man who has used the church and the bible in order to sell himself to false Christians who worship money, who has even claimed divine intervention from God, to then complain about the Bishop not staying in her lane.

Speaking out against bigotry
If religious leaders don’t speak out against bigotry, hatred, and threats to peaceful, decent human beings — then what’s the point?

Wow. Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde fearlessly calls out Trump and Vance to their faces. This is heroic. pic.twitter.com/igyKzC8dRo

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) January 21, 2025

I admired Budde’s bravery. Just quietly, the church hasn’t always had the best record of speaking out against those who’ve said the sort of things that Trump is saying.

If you’re unclear what I mean, I’m talking about Hitler, and it’s nice to see the church, or at least the Bishop, taking the other side this time around. Rather than offering compliance and collaboration, as they did then and as the political establishment in America is doing now.

Aside from all that, it feels like a weird, topsy-turvy world when the church is asking the government to be more compassionate towards the LGBT community.

El Douche hadn’t finished and said, “Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was a very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology!”

It’s like he just says the opposite of what is happening, and people are so stupid or full of hate that they accept it, even though it’s obviously false.

So, the Bishop is derided as “nasty” when she is considerate and kind. She is called “Not Smart” when you only have to listen to her to know she is an intelligent, well-spoken person. She is called “Ungracious” when she is polite and respectful.

Willing wretches
As is the case with bullies, there are always wretches willing to support them and act similarly to win favour, even as many see them for what they are.

Mike Collins, a Republican House representative, tweeted, “The person giving this sermon should be added to the deportation list.”

Isn’t that disgusting? An elected politician saying that someone should be deported for daring to challenge the person at the top, even when it is so clearly needed.

Echoing the teachings of Jesus and calling out Trump’s cruelty, ignorance, and bigotry to his face, Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde delivers a sermon for the ages. Bishop Budde stared down authoritarian fascism and said ‘Not today, motherfucker.’ 😳👇 pic.twitter.com/JDBDa5RAgs

— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) January 21, 2025

Fox News host Sean Hannity said, “Instead of offering a benediction for our country, for our president, she goes on the far-left, woke tirade in front of Donald Trump and JD Vance, their families, their young children. She made the service about her very own deranged political beliefs with a disgraceful prayer full of fear-mongering and division.”

Perhaps most despicably, Robert Jeffress, the pastor of Dallas’s First Baptist Church, tweeted this sycophantic garbage:

Attended national prayer service today at the Washington National Cathedral during which Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde insulted rather than encouraged our great president @realDonaldTrump. There was palpable disgust in the audience with her words. @POTUS

— Dr. Robert Jeffress (@robertjeffress) January 21, 2025

Those cronies of Trump seem weak and dishonest to me compared to the words of Bishop Budde herself, who said the following after her sermon:

“I wanted to say there is room for mercy, there’s room for a broader compassion. We don’t need to portray with a broadcloth in the harshest of terms some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are, in fact, our neighbours, our friends, our children, our friends, children, and so forth.”

The Republican party has made its pact with the Donald, and the Tech Bros have fallen over each other in their desire to kiss his ass; it will be a dark time for many regular people, no doubt, to stand up for what they believe in even as those with power and privilege fall in line behind the tyrant.

In my view Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde is a hero, and she does herself great credit with this courageous, compassionate, Christian stand

First published by Nick’s Kōrero and republished with permission. For more of Nick Rockel’s articles or to subscribe to his blog, click here.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

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

Secular Trend?

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

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

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

Mortality Peaks

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

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

Old Age

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

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

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

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

Dry Tinder

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

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

The Charts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prognostication

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

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

Note

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

*******

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

The Pacific Election 2023 debate kicked off today with one of the most pressing issues for Pacific communties — an amnesty for overstayers.

The Dawn Raids apology was two years ago, and weeks out from the election, the Labour Party has announced it would offer a lifeline for long-term overstayers in New Zealand.

It followed anger from Pacific community leaders, disappointed it had not happened in all the years following the apology.

On the panel were Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni, National’s Fonoti Agnes Loheni, ACT’s Karen Chhour and Teanau Tuiono from the Green Party.

Labour’s Sepuloni said the amnesty announcement was not an attempt at baiting voters.

“You have to think about everything that has been expected of Immigration New Zealand in the last couple of years and the immense pressure that they have been under,” Sepuloni said.

An amnesty would be granted “in the first 100 days if we are re-elected,” she said.

Green support for amnesty
The Green Party would also suppport an amnesty for overstayers.

“Amnesty for overstayers is more than timely. It is late,” said Green Party Pacific Peoples spokesperson Teanau Tuiano, criticising Labour for taking too long.

The Pacific Issues Debate. Video: RNZ Pacific and PMN

Meanwhile, both National and ACT would not back an amnesty.

National leader Christopher Luxon had previously said it would send the wrong message and encourage “rule breakers”.

National’s Pacific spokesperson Loheni said the the Dawn Raids was no doubt “discrimination and abhorrent”.

But, she took the side of people “working hard to go through the legal steps to become residents”.

Health
Around 40 percent of New Zealanders — and half of Pasifika people — cannot afford dental care.

The Green Party plans to make dental care free for everyone — paid through a wealth tax system, which the Labour Party had already ruled out.

However, the Labour government said it would provide free dental care for everyone under 30 years old.

Dental care in New Zealand is free until a person turns 18 years old. But this excludes orthodontic care, i.e. braces because it is classed as “specialist dental care”.

National’s plan to tackle the health crisis was to attract an overseas workforce and plug the nurses and doctor shortage within New Zealand. Loheni reiterated her party leader’s stance and refused to back “race-based” policies but did acknowledge the hardships Pacific people faced.

“The numbers are grim for the Pacific. We need to get more of a workforce here,” Loheni said.

“The health system is in absolute crisis. We are 4800 nurses short. We are about 1700, GP’s short and about 1000 midwives short,” she said.

ACT Party candidate Karen Chhour said, “I’m hearing all around the country and especially up north and just the lack of GPs up north.”

Chhour said it was about helping to “ease pressure off hospital services” and “investing in the front line services”.

Two thirds of students experience poverty.

“Why would you go into university to study medicine . . . we would pay this through a wealth tax,” Greens Tuiano said.

This policy is expected to provide a guaranteed income for students or a person who has fallen out of work to help them get through university.

Labour said it would address health inequities because Pacific and Māori people were more disadvantaged.

“It has been incredibly ugly on the campaign trail . . . the level of racism that is resulted because of the rhetoric around measures like this, when they are purely equity measures and they should be embraced by everyone,” Sepuloni said.

She said seen since 2019, around 1000 health scholarships had been given to Pacific people.

Housing
One in 10 Pacific (11 percent) children live in damp and mouldy homes, where they are 80 times more likely to develop acute rheumatic fever, which can lead to heart disease and death.

Sepuloni said: “We have increased that by 13,000 homes, stopped selling them off. We have got 2700 Pacific people signed up with our programme that provides them with support to pathway into home ownership . . .

“Some of our Pacific populated areas are getting investment that they never had before. Like the NZ$1.5 billion we put into put it for housing revitalisation.”

But ACT’s Chhour hit back and said the “government should be held to the same account as landlords”.

“Kāinga Ora is one of the worst landlords in some cases where they do not meet those standards and where they have got extra time to meet those standards,” she said.

Green’s Tuiono said prices for rentals needed to be capped to protect tenants.

“There are 1.4 million renters within New Zealand and many of those people are our people.”

National’s Loheni said she “grew up in a state house with a crowd 15 people. One of my sisters has lived with asthma her whole life and it put her behind in school”.

She said under the Labour government “rents have gone up $180 per week.

“Unfortunately, we still need social housing, emergency housing. We have got 500 people living in cars at the moment. So we got a priority category to move those people who have been living in cars further up that social housing list.”

Education
Pasifika students face significant achievement gaps and underfunding, while teachers struggle with complex job demands and mental health issues.

“The government has failed our students,” Loheni said.

Loheni got emotional during the debate when sharing the declining pass rates of some Pasifika students.

“Only 14.5 percent Pasifika students reach the minimum curriculum for maths compared to the rest of the population of 41.5 percent,” she said.

“Please don’t say it’s covid because why is it Pasifika students, the lowest of all groups, and nothing has been done.”

Sepuloni defended her party, and said it had invested $5 billion into the education system – mainly “towards pay for teachers”.

Chhour said there’s a lot of pressure on teachers.

“Not only are they teachers, social workers, kids have been through a lot. They have effectively had interrupted education for the last three years.

“A lot of them are feeling anxiety about whether they agree with your exams. A lot of them are suffering from mental health issues . . . so teachers are dealing with all of this on top of actually trying to educate our kids.”

She said under the ACT party, they wanted to “bring back” charter schools and partnership schools for young people “who didn’t quite fit into the education system”.

Greens’ Tuiono said the government’s payout to support teachers was “vital”.

“I talked to some teachers where their pay rise hasn’t kept up with inflation for 10 years.”

Crime
Almost half of our Pacific children are likely to live around family violence. Pacific children are twice as likely to be hospitalised due to assault, neglect and maltreatment.

Sepuloni said it was about addressing “intergenerational impacts”.

She said sending more young people to prison was “an opportunity for gangs to actually recruit once they’re in there”.

Instead, a programme they had put in place addressed this issue and had seen more than 80 percent of young offenders not go on to reoffend.

“It actually requires full wraparound support for not just them but for their siblings and their families.”

Loheni said the National Party would address the rise of RAM raids and through “social investment,” and planned to put young people through military and cadet training, which studies had previously shown to be ineffective.

“We do have policies around military academies where they are going to have wraparound support, note that they do work.”

Tuiono disagreed. “Locking them up into boot camps that just won’t work.”

“We also have to address those underlying drivers of poverty because if you have the stable home life, there’s food on the table, you know the family can afford to keep the lights on, that helps to stabilise our families.

“That’s what we should be doing,” he said.

Climate change
National plans to “double renewable energy, help farmers clean up in the areas and invest in public transport,” Loheni said.

Sepuloni said Labour was “action oriented” and their “track record” with the Greens “goes to show that we have been able to reduce carbon emissions”.

Tuiono said “a vote for the Greens is a vote for climate action”.

“We have got some money set aside to support our towns and our councils to make their towns and councils more more climate resilient.”

ACT’s Chhour said the party would be looking at how “we’re building our infrastructure and adapting to climate change”.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Last month The Daily Blog offered its New Year infamous news media gongs — and blasts — for 2022. In this extract, editor and publisher Martyn Bradbury names the mainstream media “blind spots”.

Graham Adams over at The Platform made the argument this year that the failure of mainstream media to engage with the debates occurring online is a threat to democracy.

With trust in New Zealand media at an all time low, I wondered what is the list of topics that you simply are NOT allowed to discuss on NZ mainstream media.

Here is my list of 17 topics over 30 years in New Zealand media:

1. Palestine: You cannot talk about the brutal occupation of Palestine by Israel in NZ media. It’s just not allowed, any discussion has to be framed as “Poor Israelis being terrorised by evil angry Muslims”. There is never focus on the brutal occupation and when it ever does emerge in the media it’s always insinuated that any criticism is anti-Semitism.
2. Child Poverty NEVER adult poverty: We only talk about child poverty because they deserve our pity. Adults in poverty can go screw themselves. Despite numbering around 800,000, adults in poverty are there because they “choose” to be there. The most important myth of neoliberalism is that your success is all your own, as is your failure. If an adult is in poverty, neoliberal cultural mythology states that is all on them and we have no obligation to help. That’s why we only ever talk endlessly about children in poverty because the vast majority of hard-hearted New Zealanders want to blame adults in poverty on them so we can pretend to be egalitarian without actually having to implement any policy.
3. The Neoliberal NZ experiment: You are never allowed to question the de-unionised work force that amputated wages, you can never question selling off our assets, you can never criticise the growth über alles mentality, you are never allowed to attack the free market outcomes and you can’t step back and evaluate the 35-year neoliberal experiment in New Zealand because you remind the wage slaves of the horror of it all.
4. Class: You cannot point out that the demarcation line in a capitalist democracy like New Zealand is the 1 percent richest plus their 9 percent enablers vs the 90 percent rest of us. Oh, you can wank on and on about your identity and your feelings about your identity in a never ending intersectionist diversity pronoun word salad, but you can’t point out that it’s really the 90 percent us vs the 10 percent them class break down because that would be effective and we can’t have effective on mainstream media when feelings are the currency to audience solidarity in an ever diminishing pie of attention.
5. Immigration: It must always be framed as positive. It can never be argued that it is a cheap and lazy growth model that pushes down wages and places domestic poor in competition with International student language school scams and exploited migrant workers. Any criticism of Immigration makes you a xenophobe and because the Middle Classes like travelling and have global skills for sale, they see any criticism of migrants as an attack on their economic privileges.
6. Hypertourism: We are never allowed to ask “how many is too many, you greedies”. The tourism industry that doesn’t give a shit about us locals, live for the 4 million tourists who visit annually. We are not allowed to ask why that amount of air travel is sustainable, we are not allowed to ask why selling Red Bull and V at tourist stops is somehow an economic miracle and we are certainly not allowed to question why these tourists aren’t directly being taxed meaningfully for the infrastructure they clog.
7. Dairy as a Sunset Industry: We are never allowed to point out that the millisecond the manufactured food industry can make synthetic milk powder, they will dump us as a base ingredient and the entire dairy industry overnight will collapse. With synthetic milks and meats here within a decade, it is time to radically cull herds, focus on only organic and free range sustainable herds and move away from mass production dairy forever. No one is allowed to mention the iceberg that is looming up in front of the Fonteera Titanic.
8. B-E-L-I-E-V-E victims: It’s like How to Kill a MockingBird was never written. People making serious allegations should be taken seriously, not B-E-L-I-E-V-E-D. That’s a tad fanatical Christian for me. It’s led to a change in our sexual assault laws where the Greens and Labour removed the only defence to rape so as to get more convictions, which when you think about it, is cult like and terrifying. Gerrymandering the law to ensure conviction isn’t justice, but in the current B-E-L-I-E-V-E victims culture it sure is and anyone saying otherwise is probably a rape apologist who should be put in prison immediately.
9. The Trans debate: This debate is so toxic and anyone asking any question gets immediately decried as transphobic. I’ve seen nuclear reactor meltdowns that are less radioactive than this debate. I’m so terrified I’m not going to say anything other than “please don’t hurt my family” for even mentioning it.
10. It’s never climate change for this catastrophic weather event: Catastrophic weather event after catastrophic weather event but it’s never connected to global warming! It’s like the weather is changing cataclysmically around us but because it’s not 100 percent sure that that cigarette you are smoking right now is the one that causes that lump inside you to become cancer, so we can’t connect this catastrophic weather event with a climate warming model that states clearly that we will see more and more catastrophic weather events.
11. Scoops: No New Zealand media will never acknowledge another media’s scoop in spite of a united front being able to generate more exposure and better journalism.
12. Te Reo fanaticism: You are not allowed to point out that barely 5 percent of the population speak Te Reo and that everyone who militantly fires up about it being an “official language” never seem that antagonistic about the lack of sign language use. Look, my daughter goes to a Māori immersion class and when she speaks Te Reo it makes me cry joyfully and I feel more connected to NZ than any other single moment. But endlessly ramming it down people’s throats seems woke language policing rather than a shared cultural treasure. You can still be an OK human being and not speak Te Reo.
13. Māori land confiscation: Māori suffered losing 95 percent of their land in less than a century, they were almost decimated by disease and technology brought via colonisation, they endured the 1863 Settlements Act, they survived blatant lies and falsehoods devised to create the pretext for confiscation, and saw violence in the Waikato. Māori have lived throughout that entire experience and still get told to be grateful because Pākehā brought blankets, tobacco and “technology”.
14. The Disabled: Almost 25 percent of New Zealand is disabled, yet for such a staggeringly huge number of people, their interests get little mention in the mainstream media.
15. Corporate Iwi: You can’t bring up that that the corporate model used for Iwi to negotiate settlements is outrageous and has created a Māori capitalist elite who are as venal as Pākehā capitalists.
16. Police worship: One of the most embarrassing parts about living in New Zealand is the disgusting manner in which so many acquiesce to the police. It’s never the cop’s fault when they shoot someone, it’s never the cop’s fault when they chase people to their death, it’s never the cop’s fault for planting evidence, it’s never the cops fault for using interrogation methods that bully false confessions out of vulnerable people. I think there is a settler cultural chip on our shoulders that always asks the mounted constabulary to bash those scary Māori at the edge of town because we are frightened of what goes bump in the night. We willingly give police total desecration to kill and maim and frame as long as long as they keep us safe. It’s sickening.
17. House prices will increase FOREVER! Too many middle class folk are now property speculators and they must see their values climb to afford the extra credit cards the bank sends them. We can never talk about house prices coming down. They must never fall. Screw the homeless, scre the generations locked out of home ownership and screw the working poor. Buying a house is only for the children of the middle classes now. Screw everyone else. Boomer cradle to the grave subsidisations that didn’t extend to any other generation. Free Ben and Jerry Ice Cream for every Boomer forever! ME! ME! ME!

You’ll also note that because so many media are dependent on real estate advertising, there’s never been a better time to buy!

Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury is a New Zealand media commentator, former radio and TV host, and former executive producer of Alt TV — a now-defunct alternative music and culture channel. He is publisher of The Daily Blog and writes blogs at Tumeke! and TDB. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The greenlight has been given to University of the South Pacific vice-chancellor, Professor Pal Ahluwalia, and Dr Padma Lal, to return to Fiji by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

Professor Ahluwalia was deported in 2021 and Dr Lal — widow of the late leading Fiji academic Professor Brij Lal — was refused entry to Fiji along with her husband.

Exiled Professor Ahluwalia currently resides in Samoa and Dr Lal in Australia.

Rabuka has made it clear today that both of them are free to enter the country.

“I am ready to meet Dr Lal and Professor Ahluwalia personally,” he said.

“I will apologise on behalf of the people of Fiji for the way they were treated.”

Dr Lal had been prevented from coming to Fiji with her husband’s ashes for them to be taken to his birthplace at Tabia, near Labasa.

First anniversary
Today marks the first anniversary of Professor Lal’s death.

Rabuka said prohibition orders against Professor Brij Lal and Dr Lal, as well as Professor Ahluwalia, were “unreasonable and inhumane” and should never have been made.

He had promised his government would bring to an end the injustices suffered by Professor Ahluwalia, and Professor Lal.

“I received a clarification today from the Department of Immigration that neither Dr Padma Lal nor Professor Ahluwalia were the subject of written prohibition orders,” he said.

Josefa Babitu is a Fiji Sun reporter. Republished from the Fiji Sun.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A group of students from West Papua, the Melanesian Pacific region in Indonesia, are fearful about their futures in New Zealand after their scholarships were cut off.

A group of about 40 students have been studying at different tertiary institutions in New Zealand, but in December received a letter from the provincial government of Papua saying their living allowances, travel and study fees were stopping and they had to return home because their studies had not met expectations.

Auckland-based West Papua student Laurens Ikinia is part of a group advocating for the students. He said some students had gone home, but about 25 remained at Auckland, Waikato and Canterbury universities, as well as Palmerston North polytech UCOL and the tertiary institution IPU New Zealand.

“The reason the government used was because we were not making any progress on our studies. We have actually requested from the provincial government about how did they come up with that?

“All the students on the list are halfway through completing their studies. All the information they put in is completely wrong.”

Ikinia said the letter had been a shock and many of the students were uncertain about whether they could stay in New Zealand.

Many were struggling without the scholarship, unable to focus on their studies and “mentally and emotionally unstable”.

Plea for help
The group had asked Immigration Minister Kris Faafoi and the Green Party for help.

Roy Towolom, 21, came to New Zealand in 2016 from Tolikara and attended Awatapu College in Palmerston North.

He is one of 11 Papuan students in his carpentry course at UCOL and he has about a week left before he completes his studies. UCOL and his church have been supporting him since his living allowance stopped.

Towolom said the affected students were confused about being asked to leave and the government letter did not make sense and was out of date.

“It was pretty shocking. There was no specific reason why the funds were cut. We didn’t know what the reason was.”

His student visa expires next month, but he wants to stay in New Zealand and is thinking about becoming a builder. He hopes to get a work visa.

Run by provincial government
A spokesperson for the Indonesian Embassy said the scholarship programme in New Zealand was run by the provincial government of Papua and 593 students were receiving the scholarship.

The decision to repatriate some Papuan students overseas was “based on evaluation regarding academic performance, the time allocation of the relevant scholarships”.

“It is also important to highlight that only those who have exceeded the allocated time of the scholarship and those who cannot meet the academic requirements are being recalled.”

The spokesperson said most scholarship recipients had been studying in New Zealand since 2015 and were yet to finish their tertiary education as planned.

“The decision to repatriate certain students does not impact on those students who remain on track with regards to their studies abroad.

“The assessment is also conducted to ensure that other eligible students from Papua province also obtain the same opportunity in pursuing their studies.”

The embassy had been in contact with the affected students.

Encouraged to leave ‘voluntarily’
A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Faafoi said students who did not meet requirements to stay in New Zealand would be encouraged to leave voluntarily.

None of the students were at risk of being deported and Immigration New Zealand had discussed the situation with them.

“Students who do not meet requirements to stay in New Zealand will be encouraged to depart voluntarily.”

The Papuan provincial government would cover their repatriation costs, the spokesperson said.

A UCOL spokesperson said the institution was supporting the 15 students at UCOL with living costs.

The University of Canterbury’s international partnership and support manager Monique van Veen said the university’s student care team was working with the affected students.

“It has definitely created hardship and stress for these scholars. We have been in touch with Education New Zealand to let them know what’s going on.”

A spokesperson for the University of Waikato said they were unable to comment due to privacy reasons.

IPU and the University of Auckland did not respond to a request for comment.

The Papuan provincial government has been contacted for comment.

George Heagney is a Stuff reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Outspoken Madang MP Bryan Kramer has been stripped of the Justice and Attorney-General ministries and given the Immigration and Border Security portfolio in a move seen as a demotion in Papua New Guinea’s pre-Easter cabinet mini-reshuffle.

Prime Minister James Marape announced the change along with four others last week, only a fortnight out from the start of the 2022 national general elections campaign with the writs being issued next week on April 28.

The other changes are: Westly Nukundj to Provincial and Local-Level Government Affairs, replacing Pila Niningi, who takes over Kramer’s former portfolio; Sohe MP Henry Amuli takes on Commerce and Industry, left vacant following the death of William Samb (Goilala MP); and Daulo MP Pogio Ghate replaces Chuave MP Wera Mori as Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change.

Mori resigned from the cabinet a month ago to lead the Country Party into the elections.

New minister for Provincial and Local-Level Government Affairs Nukundj, last night thanked the government for having trust in him.

“I thank the prime minister for recognising my potential in elevating me to a senior ministry to be in charge of all the provincial and local level governments,” he said.

“I will discharge my duties to the very best of my knowledge, experiences and ability.”

Ministers Amuli and Ghate are first-term MPs.

Elevated to cabinet
They are being elevated to cabinet for the first time.

This is Marape’s fourth cabinet reshuffle since he became prime minister two years ago.

He appeared evasive when asked about the sudden changes with the election just days away.

Marape just said the changes were “necessary” to maintain cabinet.

“We had to fill the vacancies left in key portfolios and we had to have ministers who could have oversight on the portfolios so that work continues as we get into the election period,” he said.

He said the experience of each of the politicians was needed in their new portfolios.

“It is the prerogative of the prime minister, and while I respect the hard work of all three ministers the rotation of the key ministries comes at a time we are heading to the election,” Marape said.

‘Stand watch at immigration’
“We want to maintain work at the local level government, stand watch at immigration and maintain our laws, that is the reason for change.

“The changes have nothing to do with performance.

“They have all performed well in their key sectors but I felt these key sectors needed a change.

“I know the two new ministers, I know they are capable of heading the ministries they are taking care of.”

Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz