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.

Older persons are highly visible across Asia and the Pacific: they work in agricultural fields producing our food supplies, peddle their wares as street vendors, drive tuk-tuks and buses, exercise in our parks, lead some of the region’s most successful companies and form an integral part of our families.

Indeed, population ageing is one of the megatrends greatly affecting sustainable development. People now live longer than ever and remain active because of improved health. We must broaden the narrow view of older persons as requiring our care to recognize that they are also agents of development. With many parts of the Asia-Pacific region rapidly ageing, we can take concrete steps to provide environments in which our elders live safely, securely and in dignity and contribute to societies.

To start with, we must invest in social protection and access to universal healthcare throughout the life-course. Currently, it is estimated that 14.3 per cent of the population in Asia and the Pacific are 60 years or older; that figure is projected to rise to 17.7 per cent by 2030 and to one-quarter in 2050. Moreover, 53.1 per cent of all older persons are women, a share that increases with age. Therefore, financial security is needed so older persons can stay active and healthy for longer periods. In many countries of the region, less than one-third of the working-age population is covered by mandatory pensions, and a large proportion still lacks access to affordable, good quality health care.

Such protection is crucial because older persons continue to bolster the labour force, especially in informal sectors. In Thailand, for example, a third of people aged 65 years or over participate in the labour force; 87 per cent of working women aged 65 or over work in the informal sector, compared to 81 per cent of working men in the same cohort. This general trend is seen in other countries of the region.

Older persons, especially older women, also make important contributions as caregivers to both children and other older persons. This unpaid care enables younger people in their families to take paid work, often in metropolitan areas of their own country or abroad. 

Older persons should also have lifelong learning opportunities. Enhanced digital literacy, for example, can close the grey digital divide. Older women and men need to stay abreast of technological developments to access services, maintain connections with family and friends and remain competitive in the labour market. Through inter-generational initiatives, younger people can train older people in the use of technology.

We must also invest in quality long-term care systems to ensure that older persons who need it can receive affordable quality care. With the increase in dementia and other mental health conditions, care needs are becoming more complex. Many countries in the region still rely on family members to provide such care, but there may be less unpaid care in the future, and care by family members is not always quality care. 

Finally, addressing age-based discrimination and barriers will be crucial to allow the full participation of older persons in economies and societies. Older women and men actively volunteer in older persons associations or other organizations. They help distribute food and medicine in emergency situations, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, monitor the health of neighbours and friends, or teach each other how to use digital devices. Older persons also play an active role in combatting climate change by sharing knowledge and techniques of mitigation and adaptation. Ageism intersects and exacerbates other disadvantages, including those related to sex, race, and disability, and combatting it will contribute to the health and well-being of all.

This week, countries in Asia and the Pacific will convene to review and appraise the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA) on the occasion of its 20^th anniversary. MIPAA provides policy directions for building societies for all ages with a focus on older persons and development; health and well-being in old age; and creating enabling environments. The meeting will provide an opportunity for member States to discuss progress on the action plan and identify remaining challenges, gaps and new priorities.

While several countries in the region already have some form of policy on ageing, the topic must be mainstreamed into all policies and action plans, and they must be translated into coherent, cross-sectoral national strategies that reach all older persons in our region, including those who inhabit remote islands, deserts or mountain ranges.

Older persons are valuable members of our societies, but too often they are overlooked. Let us ensure that they can fully contribute to our sustainable future.

*******

Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

On 1 December 2021 the CCCFA (Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act) entered Aotearoa New Zealand with more stealth than the Omicron BA2 variant. It resulted in unintended consequences that were (and are) entirely predictable.

There are two sets of ‘unintended but predictable consequences’: those consequences that make anxious and desperate people more anxious, more desperate, and more detached from mainstream law-abiding living; and those consequences which aggravate the systemic problems of our system of primitive capitalism.

Anxious People

A starting point for this topic might be the Swedish novel Anxious People (now condensed into a Netflix series, that should appeal to the same people who enjoyed The Detectorists). Set in a small city not-too-far from Stockholm, the story starts with a man committing suicide. The trigger for his suicide turned out to be the rejection of an application for a bank loan. Then, the main antihero of the story also found herself in an incredibly difficult situation, in part because of the Family Court and social assistance bureaucracies, and in part because of petty ‘rules-based’ rejection by the bank, following her attempt to gain a small personal loan. The story was bittersweet, neither tragedy nor comedy; uplifting because of the way that the community of ‘ordinary people’ (people each with their own issues) resolved their personal issue through what might be called ‘genuine community kindness’.

In New Zealand we have many anxious people, brought to critical states of anxiety for a number of different reasons. (In this RNZ story, The Science behind a Broken Heart 21 Mar 2022, the interviewee states that “scientists are figuring out that when we feel lonely, when we feel abandoned, our immune systems change”. This is an important undisproved hypothesis – that escalating anxiety itself may be the equivalent of a pandemic, in terms of physical health – that needs much more discussion and scientific investigation. We remind ourselves that ‘scientific’ truths are not ‘facts’; rather they are undisproved hypotheses, with some of these truths having been subject to more scrutiny than others.)

One of the most important reasons relates to housing: both getting home loans, and negotiating the rental market. Too many twenty-somethings are too anxious, and/or too poor, to leave the parental home. Many people in Aotearoa need to borrow money in order to forestall immediate problems in their lives. The last thing that they need is to have to confront an intrusive lender bureaucracy; a form of officialdom that can be as stressful to face as the government ‘we are here to help’ bureaucracy.

Banks lend to people who can jump certain hurdles. The government’s ‘here to help’ agencies target people who cannot jump similar hurdles. One day an anxious person may visit a government agency, dressing downbeat, and spinning their answers to emphasise their incapacity. On another day, such an anxious person may go to the bank, dress upbeat; and must re-spin their answers to essentially the same questions, to emphasise their capacity. Always there are lengthy forms to complete, so that the assessors can tick – or not tick – their formulaic boxes. The banks tended to be the lesser evil; that is, until 1 December 2021.

Capitalism works well when the income distribution system is working well. Government-targeted welfare is a part of the income distribution system; albeit a charity band-aid to a market system that fails. Primitive capitalism fails because it emphasises private property rights – including labour rights – while rejecting public property rights. And we note that the word ‘targeted’ is a euphemism for ‘allocation by means of intrusive bureaucracy’.

Lending and borrowing – credit and debt – is capitalism’s number one backstop for when the income distribution system fails to maintain its necessary equity and circulation objectives. Borrowing, while indeed a backstop, is actually much more than a backstop. It’s an integral component of any form of capitalism, primitive or developed.

People with less income than they need to meet their reasonable aspirations have just a few options; options which may help them get by in the present (eg as renters instead of home purchasers), or may give them sufficient means to escape from an income trap. These options are: borrowing, gambling, private charity, disreputable self-employment, and overt crime. If we take away the better of these options, that pushes people towards the worse of these.

Despite (or because of) the failings of the income distribution system, the lending/borrowing system in New Zealand was working surprisingly well. It was getting much money into the bank accounts of those who needed it to meet their aspirations, and the aspirations of the many resilient but stressed businesses who sold goods and services to people spending borrowed as well as earned funds.

The CCCFA was an attempt to fix a problem, which, except at the margins, did not exist. Once again from the government, a solution in search of a problem. And where, at the margins, a problem of exploitation did exist, there were better solutions available than deterrence through bureaucracy.

What happens if we make our financial markets under-accessible to ordinary households and small businesses? It means a circulation problem; see below. And it means that ordinary New Zealanders must increasingly look to these: the bank of mum and dad, gambling, private charity, disreputable self-employment, and overt crime.

Gambling gives people a chance of meeting an aspiration; it makes rational sense when they would otherwise have no chance of meeting that aspiration. Private charity includes various forms of individual and community ‘giving’: foodbanks is an obvious one, as is giving money to street beggars. Less obviously, it includes the many and varied forms of charity that parents may provide to their adult children. Related to this last form of charity is the bank of mum and dad, where loans – usually soft-loans – are made between parents and adult children. The bank of mum and dad tends to reinforce existing privileges in the income distribution landscape.

Overt crime here is theft, which includes running businesses that sell illegal goods or services. Disreputable self-employment is either selling marginally legal services – such as prostitution – or working as a ‘contract employee’ for an illegal or a marginally legal business. These activities represent the ‘black’ and ‘grey’ economies.

The key point here is that, as people’s lives become more precarious, and as relatively good options (such as borrowing money) diminish or close, then people get pushed into the much worse options to either maintain a basic living standard, or to meet aspirations of success.

We note that even bankruptcy represents an important part of the better options. Life for the economically insecure does involve hopeful borrowing that in some cases leads to bankruptcy. In practice, undertaking debt with a risk of bankruptcy is a far better option – for individuals, businesses, and society in general – than is resort to the criminal underworld. One doesn’t have to read or watch too many Dickensian stories to appreciate the need for an alternative to crime and criminalised debt. Indeed, the modern concept of bankruptcy – the decriminalisation of debt default – was one of the most important and socially progressive developments of the Victorian era.

Policies which make personal debt harder to access represent a reversal of post-Dickensian social progress.

Circulation of Money and Wage Goods

The other, and in some ways even more important problem with the bureaucratisation of household and small business finance, is that of impaired circulation of income and spending. Income and spending together make up ‘the circulatory economy’; or, for short, ‘the economy’.

An important concept here is that of ‘wage goods’; a term used a lot by economists in the period from circa 1850 to 1950, but not a lot these days. Wage goods are the goods and services that ordinary people buy; they include ‘necessities’ but go well beyond being necessary goods. They include basic aspirational goods and services. Thus, they represent mass markets. The key to the success of industrial capitalism – an extension of primitive capitalism which arose from the industrial revolution – is the ability of ordinary people to buy goods manufactured at scale, through the ‘factory system’.

During the twentieth century, cars and houses became wage goods. In the more-populated early twenty-first century, we might say an apartment rather than a detached or semi-detached house. The larger wage goods – which include household devices – always have and always will require recourse to borrowed money. This recourse is called ‘personal finance’; and involves a lifecycle mix of borrowing and saving. Further, large wage goods can be either rented or purchased; ideally with the lessors being people and businesses embedded in the circulatory economy.

To these wage goods we can add ‘social wage goods’. Think of education, healthcare, defence, and environmental and public health subsidies. In normal times, these will be funded from public revenue; taxation for the most part. But, and especially when public revenue systems are under strain, it is essential that they be funded by other means, rather than being unprovided or underprovided.

An efficient monetary circulation system has two requirements. The first of those is an income distribution system that maintains a stable (and not excessive) degree of inequality. By ‘stable’, we mean that the distribution of income inequality should be essentially the same in 2022 as it was in 1972; and (assuming that 1972 was a good year) in all years in-between, and all years in the future.

The second requirement is that there is a stabilising financial system (including an international system, which is beyond the scope of this essay). Such a system has three components: personal finance, business finance, and government finance.

Personal finance has already been alluded too. Business finance represents the core of capitalism; in particular, the financing of businesses which supply (create and sell) goods and services. Businesses invest in capital goods, and in inventories. Government finance – the third leg of the financial stool – is a critically important for investment in capital infrastructure, to maintain the income distribution system through what would otherwise be ‘hard times’, and to maintain the supply of social wage goods. As the third leg of the stool, government finance stabilises the stool – the system – compensating for the collective vagaries associated with personal spending and business investment. Of particular importance is the privileged (and necessary) ability of central governments to maintain a ‘balance sheet’ that enables them to be ‘borrowers of last resort’ while undertaking their core roles even in – no, especially in – hard times.

What I have outlined above is what we call ‘the economy’. When functioning well, with due recognition of public as well as private rights, the economy has transitioned from primitive to democratic capitalism.

What happens if we have legislation that hobbles the efficient cycling of money into the production of wage goods (including social wage goods), and capital goods (private and public)? Where does the money go when it doesn’t go where it should go? The short answer is that it flows to a relatively small number of asset-rich people. Part is this is cycled back into the economy through their purchases of luxury goods (those private goods and services which are not wage goods). Part of it just sits in banks and other repositories; it does not circulate at all. And the third part circulates in another place; a place that may be called ‘the casino’.

The casino is a whole suite of secondary markets – real estate, company shares, bonds, financial derivatives, foreign bank deposits, crypto-currencies, gold, artefacts, artworks, football teams, non-fungible-tokens; once upon a time there was even a speculative secondary market in tulip bulbs. Capitalism always has its casino, inhabited in the main by oligarchs and plutocrats. The circulation system is inefficient – and unstable – when ‘the casino’ is too big relative to ‘the economy’; and particularly when the casino grows faster than the economy.

In this last ‘uneven growth’ case, the flow of unspent money into the casino from the economy exceeds the flow of spent money from the casino back to the economy. It is in these times – a net flow of money from the economy to the casino – when most asset prices rise; this may be facilitated by monetary policies which inject new money into the casino rather than into the economy.

The easiest way by far for injecting new money into the national economy is via the government’s balance sheet. The big problem here is when debt-averse governments resist this process, thereby forcing money that should be going into the economy, into the casino instead. When this happens, the casino grows faster than the economy; asset prices increase, creating an illusion of wealth creation, but really only pumping up the prices of tradable assets. Rather than a bottomless money pit, the casino is a gravityless monetary sky.

New Zealand’s present regime of ‘Authoritarian Social Neoliberalism’

Finally, I will present this label that I think fits. Neoliberalism, by the way, means – more than anything else – the centrality of both private property rights (as a basis for the distribution of income) and restrictive public finance (aka government debt-aversion).

The government takes an authoritarian ‘top down’ approach to execute both a social policy agenda and its responses to exogenous events. The alternative is a democratic approach where informed – through discussion, not narrative – populations find their own solutions, and are supported by governments to do so. And the government pursues its debt-averse interpretation of neoliberalism, both with respect to its own balance sheet, and in its supposition that households and businesses also should behave as debt-minimisers.

The result is that both personal savings and new money flow, substantially and excessively, into ‘the casino’; the financial stratosphere inhabited by those with large portfolios of ‘financial wealth’, meaning the tradable assets mentioned above. When subject to this kind of casino-enriching policymaking – albeit policy making that is not understood by the policymakers in this way, due to regime wilful blindness – there are necessarily large net flows of money entering the world of asset trading. That is the consequence of public policy developed in the spirit that underpinned the CCCFA.

If we don’t allow money to flow towards where it can be usefully spent within the economy, then we push people towards more desperate options, such as crime. And we prioritise the casinoisation of the economy, which includes the designation (and resigned acceptance) of land as an appreciating asset, rather than as places to live and grow food. Authoritarian social neoliberal governments don’t understand that this is what they are doing; nevertheless, that’s what they do, though they would rather not know it.

*******

References to CCCFA:

Increase in loan rejections sharpest for people with high 700-plus credit scores, Centrix says, Rob Stock, stuff.co.nz, 3 Mar 2022

Credit Madness Inquiry Must Be Open and Transparent, Act NZ, scoop.co.nz, 14 Jan 2022

David Clark: Govt will move fast on Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance law changes, NZ Herald, 17 Feb 2022

Govt Updates Responsible Lending Rules, NZ Government, scoop.co.nz, 11 Mar 2022

Government’s controversial home lending rules: Minister David Clark announces tweaks less than four months after law change, NZ Herald, 11 Mar 2022

Debtfix supports Common Sense returning to CCCFA but Stands by Protecting New Zealand’s Safe Lending Laws, 11 Mar 2022

Open letter – Backing our safe lending laws will bring financial wellbeing to our communities, Debtfix, 8 Mar 2022

*******

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 Commentariat

There is a regular commentariat who appear on places such as ‘The Panel’ on Radio New Zealand (4pm on weekdays), and on panels on television shows such as Newshub Nation (TV3, weekends) and Q+A (TV1, Mondays). Generally, these panellists come out in favour of targeted assistance to the misfortunate, in contrast to the provision of universal entitlements. A common refrain is: “I am not poor. Such a policy should not give me more money”.

Most of the panellists on these shows have little understanding about the process vulnerable people must face when applying for targeted help in a political society (such as New Zealand); a society in which substantial and costly bureaucratic efforts are made to deny people help. These processes represent the essence of targeted income support. (Such processes – unkind, sometimes cruel – also apply in other policy fields, with immigration being an obvious example. At present New Zealand has a substantial and vulnerable non-resident population experiencing simultaneous official cruelty from both the social welfare and the immigration agencies of government. And it’s not only government processes that can be cruel; consider the insurance industry with its propensity to seek out ways to not pay out on claims.)

Mechanisms of Income Distribution and Redistribution

A targeted mechanism to provide income support only to those people who meet prescribed criteria is unambiguously redistribution; it is supposed to save money by not helping anyone who does not fit the qualification profile for any targeted income benefit. As redistribution, the economists’ word ‘transfers’ neatly describes such benefits; although the mainstream media, with its love for inflammatory language, generally prefers the pejorative synonym ‘handouts’.

Targeted ‘support’ mechanisms are ‘rules-based’; a person or family either qualifies according to a set of rules, or does not qualify. Complex rules generally require bureaucratic processes. (Some rules – such as the rule that determines what percentage of a persons income must be paid in income tax – follow an arbitrary and seemingly complex formula; the benefits arising from these tax rules are unconditional but far from universal.)

Universal mechanisms are ‘rights-based’. The must obvious example is the right to vote in parliamentary elections, the universal suffrage. New Zealand Superannuation is essentially a universal rights-based benefit, though it does have exclusion rules, and does have rules allowing some qualifying people to get bigger superannuation benefits than other people. (Even universal suffrage has exclusion rules; for example, children are excluded.)

In practice, almost all political societies will feature a mix of rules-based and rights-based benefits. Some support mechanisms are, in essence, universal. Others are, in essence, targeted. Each political society has its own particular mix of rights-based and rules-based benefits.

A universal rights-based publicly-sourced income benefit is an aspect of income distribution. A targeted rules-based income benefit is an income transfer; an act of income redistribution.

Before and After (‘comparative statics’)

Most commentators do not think about mechanisms. Rather they think of a present status quo, without much concern for the mix of principles and historical quirk that have contributed to that ‘present’. This presentbecomes the ‘before’.

When a policy change is suggested – creating a hypothetical ‘after’ – such commentators then wish to know, in relation to its immediate implementation, who will be the winners and who will be the losers. Winners get more dollars ‘in their pockets’; loses get less money.

In this sense, both policies underpinned by universal principles and policies underpinned by targeting principles will create a redistribution, meaning that the ‘after’ distribution is different from the ‘before’ distribution. (An important exception is a purely accounting policy, which will change the description of the present, but not alter the amounts of dollars in different people’s pockets.)

Let’s consider a Basic Universal Income (BUI), as featured last month in Universal Income Flat Tax: the Mechanism that Makes the Necessary Possible and Universal Basic Income (or Basic Universal Income) and Covid‑19. (The BUI is the benefit component of the UIFT mechanism.) Because UIFT is a policy to inject universal distribution principles into New Zealand’s tax-benefit mechanism, commentators such as those mentioned above tend to assume that such a policy is not targeted, and is therefore not useful.

However, the Universal Income Flat Tax (UIFT) policy does benefit some people differently from other people, and turns out to be peculiarly well-targeted in its immediate impact. While the suggested policy to introduce UIFT makes no immediate difference to beneficiaries nor to people grossing more than $70,000 a year, that policy does distribute increased income to the remainder of the adult population, the people in the middle. Thus, a Basic Universal Income (as proposed) targets people earning less than $70,000 a year and who are not beneficiaries.

Universal Basic Income (or Basic Universal Income) and Covid‑19 presents five example people: Janet, Max, Bob, Jill and Fred. Two of these people Bob and Jill – receive increased incomes as a direct result of the introduction of a Basic Universal Income. Thus, the ‘target group’ is non-beneficiaries receiving low and lowish incomes.

The Universal Mechanism at Work

It is important however to note that those whose incomes would not immediately change are better off, not in the sense that they would receive an immediate gain, but in the sense that they would receive an emergency cushion. Thus, persons whose incomes fall below $70,000 in the future will gain support from their cushions. Further, persons who are presently beneficiaries gain support from their cushions when they move into precarious employment. (Much – if not most – employment is precarious in these days of Covid19.)

The policy – based on universalist principles – is both well-targeted and provides an ongoing and automatic (ie non-bureaucratic) mechanism to protect individuals whose circumstances are subject to change. Additionally, the policy stabilises the economy itself, by providing an automatic economy-wide cushion, when economies face contractionary circumstances (such as pandemics and financial panics).

Benefit Adequacy

This particular UIFT policy facilitates a rights-based income distribution that contains fast-acting equalisation and stabilisation measures – the important metaphor here is the ‘cushion’.

The policy does not directly address the issue of child poverty. Nor does it directly address the issue of benefit adequacy for existing beneficiaries. (By targeting lower-income adults, including parents, UIFT does mean that there should be less future child poverty. And, by cushioning people in precarious employment, the policy should contribute to a reduction in the numbers of misfortunate people needing to be beneficiaries.) Nevertheless, the policy does help parents who may be earning lowish incomes, or who may be suffering from falling incomes, or who may be experiencing income insecurity arising from precarious employment (including precarious self-employment). This help mitigates child poverty. The UIFT policy – thanks to its cushioning effect – also gives these employees more bargaining power, enabling some to earn higher wages.

Re benefit adequacy, the adoption of a UIFT policy in no way pre-empts the introduction of other policies that focus on the level of benefits payable to those we call ‘beneficiaries’; those people whose circumstances would determine that their income should include a benefit over and above a BUI.

The presence of a Basic Universal Income (BUI) does not mean the absence of other benefits. (It does however mean that, if a BUI of $175 per week is introduced, then a beneficiary presently receiving $300 per week, would have the first $175 of their present benefit replaced by the BUI. If this person needs an extra $50 per week to ensure benefit adequacy, then they should get an extra $50 per week, giving them a total disposable income – BUI plus benefit – of $350 per week.)

Conclusion

A reform policy need not be either universal or targeted. It may be both universal and targeted. Critics of universal income support mechanisms should be aware of both the universal and the targeted effects of particular policies, rather than indulge in ill-informed scattergun opposition to policies which are based on universalist principles. These critics should confine their criticism to particular universalist policies, and not extend their criticism to all policies that are informed by universalist principles.

Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni described this year’s annual benefit increases of 3 per cent as “significant”, and “a way of sharing the wealth”. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern also heralded them as the biggest increase to benefits in nine years, if National’s 2015 one-off adjustments are excluded.

The details of this year’s annual increase in welfare benefits were announced on Monday, the day before the official release on child poverty statistics was scheduled. The Government had already announced last year that, from now on, annual benefit increases would be calculated in the same way Superannuation is, tying the increase to average wage changes rather than the rate of inflation.

This means that on 1 April benefits will increase by about $10. This is all explained well by Audrey Young: “The increases to benefits are larger than they would have been if they remained indexed to the consumer price index, 3.09 per cent instead of 1.66 per cent. For example, a person on a sole parent support benefit will have an increase of $10.48 a week. Under the previous indexation, it would have been only $5.64 a week” – see: PM Jacinda Ardern announces larger-than-usual increases for social welfare benefits.

Young explains how this increase compares with benefit increases under National: “The increases are the largest since the Bill English Budget of 2015, which increased benefits by $25 a week for beneficiaries with dependent children. Not counting that increase, it is the largest increase in benefits in nine years.”

Should benefits be increased by more?

Will the 3 per cent increase be enough? Many poverty and welfare experts and advocates have been campaigning for much larger increases. For example, Mangere Budgeting Services chief executive Darryl Evans has said it’s progress but not nearly enough to deal with the crisis that he is seeing in his work: “I am pleased to hear it, however, I have to question how much difference it will make… A $10-a-week increase is better than nothing… however, I do have to question just how better off families will be with an extra $10” – see Jamie Ensor and Perry Wilton’s Benefit increase: Budgeting expert questions ‘how much difference it will make’.

Evans believes that larger increases were urgently needed: “What I would have like to have seen is an increase at the first point of at least a minimum of at least 10 percent with an increase of 3-4 percent each year after”.

He and others are pointing to the fact that the Government’s own Welfare Expert Advisory Group suggested increasing benefit levels by up to 47 per cent.

The Salvation Army say three per cent is not enough, and they’re armed with evidence, showing that a big one-off increase is desperately required – see Susan Edmunds’ Benefits now worth less than after they were cut by ‘Mother of all Budgets’ in 1991, Salvation Army says.

This report from last month argued that benefits don’t just need to be bettered-indexed in their annual increases, they need a big one-off increase to make up for their erosion in value over the last few decades. They have crunched the data on cost of living increases, and have come to the following conclusions: “From 1991 to 2019, benefits were only increased at the rate of general inflation – with a one-off boost in 2015 – meaning people living on benefits faced 118 per cent real inflation, while benefits increased just 79 per cent.”

Here’s the Salvation Army’s recommendations for how much benefits need to increase right now: “It said a 22 per cent increase was needed to catch up. The cost of bringing benefits back in line with their value in 1991 would be $75 a week extra to a sole parent, $60 a week extra for a single person on supported living support, and $48 extra a week for a single person aged over 25 on Jobseeker Support.”

The Army’s social policy adviser Ronji Tanielu is quoted calling for the Government to take action: “The Government’s own experts have said benefits need to increase, we have a prime minister who has made lifting children out of poverty her main goal, and now we have a surplus that can pay for it. If benefits cannot be lifted now, then when will they ever be lifted?”

Leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury is even more exasperated by the Government’s inability to take what he sees as the necessary action on this issue: “I can’t believe the audacity of Labour increasing the pittance beneficiaries are paid by lifting benefits adjusted for inflation and then wanting a standing ovation for granting that pittance… bloody John Key raised benefits higher than Labour have!” – see: Labour give beneficiaries a pittance increase per week – if only they could save children in poverty with the speed they saved Concert FM.

He speculates on why the Labour-led Government isn’t making more progress on this key concern: “Labour are too frightened of triggering that resentment with a benefit increase and they don’t have enough control over the Ministry to try and force a change of culture so we are left to cheer for pathetic increases rather than actually alleviating poverty. If only Labour could save children in poverty with the speed they saved Concert FM.”

Related to this, rightwing political commentator Ben Thomas recently argued that Labour’s prioritising of issues like saving Concert FM rather than building houses or dealing with inequality is very telling – see his must-read column: Concert programme fiasco is a revealing glimpse of Labour’s priorities.

The Child Poverty Action Group has also lamented that the Government doesn’t appear to be willing to increase benefits more significantly. Commenting in November on Treasury’s release of projected expenditure, the NGO says that, although the Government officially states it is “considering” the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s recommendations of big baseline benefit increases, this possibility hasn’t been factored into projected expenditure – see: Evidence of poverty relief lacking in 2020 Budget Policy Statement.

Nonetheless, the group commends the smaller benefit increases due to the indexing changes. They say the Government simply needs to raise the benefit baseline first. They also point out the Working for Families scheme needs similar indexing, because at the moment its value is being eroded.

The group argues the Government’s Winter Energy Payment is costing $2.4bn and is a poorly targeted use of money, given that it is a new welfare payment provided to virtually all superannuants regardless of their need. They advocate that it should be converted into payments for those at the bottom.

Government still promising “transformative change” for beneficiaries

In November, Minister Carmel Sepuloni went on Newshub Nation to answer questions about why she wasn’t increasing benefits more or implementing the promised welfare reforms, and she confirmed that more change was coming in “Phase Two”, which could include a big increase to benefits – see Scott Palmer’s Carmel Sepuloni defends not boosting benefits.

Sepuloni also explained: “We never said everything was going to be able to be done in one year or even one term. There are decades of neglect here, and we are in the process of going through that transformational change.” She wouldn’t answer further questions about benefit increases, but did suggest that even if more was given, “will ever be enough?”

Similarly, the minister spoke to RNZ, saying she was fine with the fact that the expectations of some weren’t being met, and pointed out that “I think lots of people do understand that it’s a lot harder to do that, then it is to actually make the recommendations” – see: Social Development Minister ‘working quickly as I can’ on welfare reforms.

The same item reports the views of Innes Asher, who was on the government’s own Welfare Expert Advisory group, saying not nearly enough was being done: “I think that a lot of help has reached a lot of people, but in a small way, and we’re just talking about people needing a much larger lift up to stop the struggling, and the sickness, and the distress, and the hunger and so on. So I think there just needs to be a much bigger lift.”

Benefit numbers and hardship grants increasing

Last month it was also revealed that there had been a big spike in both beneficiary numbers and applications for hardship grants. Nita Blake-Persen reported: “Figures out today from the Ministry for Social Development (MSD) show that in December there were 15,000 more people on the benefit than a year earlier. That was a 5 percent increase, bringing the total number of people on a benefit to 314,408. The figures also paint a picture of people struggling to pay for the basics, with $30 million handed out to cover emergency food grants alone” – see: The benefit battle: ‘Every cent counts’.

These changes have been a problem, with Sarah Robson reporting “The skyrocketing demand for hardship grants means Work and Income case managers haven’t been able to spend as much time getting people into jobs” – see: Work and Income too busy giving hardship grants to find employment for beneficiaries.

The answer, according to Auckland Action Against Poverty’s Ricardo Menendez March, is to simply increase benefit levels: “Work and Income frontline staff can actually focus on the intensive care that they are actually hired to do… By raising benefit levels, fewer families would need to queue up at Work and Income because they cannot afford basic necessities.”

The lack of progress is particularly disappointing for the Green Party, who campaigned on getting into government to force welfare reform, and were promised this as part of their coalition agreement with Labour. 1News reports: “The Green Party is under scrutiny for failing to make significant policy changes to the country’s welfare system despite campaign promises, but co-leader Marama Davidson says more Green MPs need to be voted into Parliament to see sweeping welfare reform” –  see: Benefits need to increase, but ‘it’s not happening right now’ – Green Party co-leader.

The Greens want to see all of the Welfare Expert Advisory group’s 47 recommendations for reform implemented, and are critical that only three have been so far. Davidson says: “We are very clear that we need to see a timeframe for the entire plan and all of the recommendations to be put in place – we haven’t yet seen that.”

One beneficiary has written about life on a benefit and his response to the latest increase: “I almost celebrated, until I realised that we are still 70 per cent behind the rises in national superannuation over the past 12 years” – see Martin Buck’s People don’t understand how low benefits are, until they’re forced to apply for one.

Of course, not all commentators believe any significant increases are warranted. Mike Hosking has criticised them, saying that they’re being given without any increase in productivity by the recipients – see: On coronavirus: Now is not the time for benefit increases.

Finally, for an in-depth discussion of the electoral politics of welfare reform, see Rob Stock’s very good article, Why New Zealand is unsympathetic towards the poor.

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.

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

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

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

Reform success looks likely

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Government’s conservative reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Referendum debates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The original news story by Nita Blake-Persen was published on the RNZ website, and relayed how “Parents lined up in the torrential rain for hours this morning outside Manurewa’s Work and Income office to meet with advocates who help them with their claims. Without them, they say their desperate pleas for cash are almost always denied” – see: People queue from 2am outside Work and Income for help.

The first person in the queue, who arrived at 2am, told the reporter he needed a grant, as he was struggling to buy basic necessities for his three children: “I need to buy long pants, jumpers, jerseys and that, and then I need to get food, because I stay in a three bedroom house – I pay $610 a week.”

Like others lined up at the Work and Income office, he had come on that particular Thursday because the advocacy group Auckland Action Against Poverty (AAAP) come along on that day every week to help beneficiaries obtain their full entitlements. Those advocates claim that beneficiaries are otherwise being turned away from proper grants.

One of the AAAP advocates appealed to the Prime Minister to sort out the situation – Kathleen Paraha challenged Jacinda Ardern, saying: “The government needs to get off their bums and come down and have a look for themselves.”

The story has provoked some strong reaction on Twitter, with many saying it epitomises this Government’s failure to deliver the transformation it has promised. For example, Newsroom editor, Tim Murphy, stated “This is one of those stories that will be remembered about a government’s time in charge”, and “The more that this Governments term progresses, the more clear it is that that they are at their core no better than the last guys, or the ones before that. Virtuous media soundbites & photo ops aren’t making a difference”.

And his business journalist colleague Bernard Hickey pinpointed the conservative fiscal approach of Ardern and her Government as being responsible, saying the 2am welfare scenes occurred “At the same time as a ‘progressive left’ Government has a $7b budget surplus and has net debt so low that even Moody’s says we could almost double it and keep our AAA rating. Yet…budget Rules…”

Political activist and former MP Sue Bradford suggested that the Government was not following through on its promises: “Minister Sepuloni used to talk about the culture change she wanted at Work & Income, but the ongoing desperation of people who need help to get the most basic of needs from W & I flies in the face of Labour’s supposedly ‘kinder’ approach to welfare.”

In the blogosphere, some on the political left expressed their frustration. Steven Cowan blogged to say the continued plight of beneficiaries was a case of Paying the price of Jacinda Ardern’s austerity policies. He argued “these Auckland beneficiaries provide more stark evidence of a society where the depth of poverty continues to deepen and the chasm of inequality continues to widen”.

And he pointed out that “It was only two months ago that the Labour-led government declined most of the recommendations of its own welfare working group”. Similarly, Martyn Bradbury argued the incident was an example of The Toxic culture of WINZ & MSD laid bare,

But is it really fair to see the 2am Manurewa event as representative of the Government’s failed welfare reform agenda? The Minister of Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni, went on RNZ’s Checkpoint programme to dispute this version of the story – see: Long queues outside MSD ‘shocking’ but not the norm – minister. Sepuloni’s reaction to the story was: “I saw the image and I saw the story and no one would pretend that it’s not shocking to see that… that is not a normal occurrence at MSD (Ministry of Social Development) offices around the country.”

The Minister’s main point was that the queues from 2am in this instance were not directly due to Work and Income decisions, but because the advocacy group AAAC had arranged for beneficiaries to gather in a way that they needed to arrive early to get the chance of advocate help.

She said: “They’re not meeting with MSD at that hour, they’re actually meeting with their advocates… We tell AAAP… on Thursdays they have guaranteed appointments for their clients, that we will see them on that Thursday – so there’s no reason for them to turn up at that hour of the morning.”

In another interview, Sepuloni explained “I am advised that the long queues seen at Manurewa are the result of benefit recipients being encouraged by their advocates to all congregate at the same time on Thursdays”. She has also called on AAAP to work differently to help beneficiaries: “The queues can be avoided if AAAP works with MSD to deal with these cases in an orderly way across the week, rather than creating a bottleneck that forces everyone to be there at once in the rain” – see Michael Daly’s Auckland Action Against Poverty hits back at Government over WINZ queues.

The same article reports Work and Income regional commissioner Mark Goldsmith claiming that the AAAP advocacy group had refused “numerous attempts” made to work together. And, further, that “We would be happy to pre-book appointments with clients and AAAP advocates so clients don’t have to wait, but so far AAAP haven’t agreed to this.”

The group has responded, disputing this: “It’s categorically untrue we’ve refused to engage with MSD re:Manurewa.” And in open letter to the Government, published on The Spinoff, the group say: “When you say we should go to different offices to spread out the work of Ministry Social Development staff and avoid ‘creating a bottleneck’, what you are admitting is that MSD staff all over Aotearoa New Zealand are failing the people they are meant to be assisting. You are admitting that there is something seriously wrong with our welfare system” – see: We should not have to do MSD’s job for them.

The group also challenges the Government on its welfare policies in general: “There is enough money to end poverty but you need to be bold. You need to tax wealth and redistribute it into social welfare and public housing. You need to spend that surplus you are sitting on. It is socially and fiscally irresponsible to allow people to continue to live in poverty. We would like to see this rhetoric on well-being and kindness materialise in the lives of the people we work with.”

To get a better understanding of the work that the AAAP group is doing with welfare beneficiaries at the Manurewa office, it’s worth reading Michael Daly and Joel MacManus’ Minister responds to Manurewa Work & Income queue problem. In this, it’s explained: “The arrangement with Work and Income was that AAAP advocates were allowed to help 65 people in the queue on Thursday mornings. There were usually about seven advocates at the office, and they interviewed those 65 people.”

AAAP coordinator Ricardo Menendez March is reported saying: “In reality we always see far more. People have the right to have a support person at Work and Income… Throughout the day we end up helping far more people, explaining to them the process and making sure the case managers are doing their work and following the law adequately”.

Menendez March says that this has been going on for about two years, during which time the queues have always existed but are getting worse. Why? He says: “We know beneficiaries have been the most disproportionately impacted by the rising cost of rent. More people than ever require hardship grants to get by.” And according to this article, “The Manurewa WINZ office gave out $698,000 in Special Needs Grants for food last year, the highest in the country by more than $200,000.”

This article is also useful for providing the Government’s side of the story on what it is changing at the frontline to help welfare recipients, with Sepuloni stating: “this Government has sent a clear instruction to frontline MSD staff that anyone coming in is to be provided with the full financial support they are legally entitled to…. As a result of this instruction the number of hardship grants provided by this government has increased 60% year on year. The value of hardship grants has gone from $81m to $128.5m from March 18 to March 19.”

In addition, the article points out that “The Government has also announced funding for 263 new frontline MSD staff over the next 4 years.”

Perhaps this means that Work and Income offices will also stop referring beneficiaries to loan sharks to help raise their necessary funds, as reported recently by 1News – see: ‘Fundamentally wrong’ – Ministry referring beneficiaries to loan sharks, activists claim.

What else can be done to alleviate the plight of those on benefits? University of Auckland economist Susan St John has come up with a list of possible solutions that could be implemented immediately. Her “emergency package” includes the “Payment of the full Working for Families tax credits to all low-income families”; “An increase in the allowable income before any benefit is lost to 10 hours at the minimum wage or $170 per week”, and “A suspension of all student loan repayments for families who get Working for Families” – see: Poverty: not an earthquake but still a crisis.

As to what reforms the Government has already come up with, St John is derisory: “The tiny changes made in the 2019 budget will miserably fail to make a difference to the immediate problem. Worse still they don’t come in until April 2020.”

And like other economists, she criticises the fiscally-conservative approach of the Government as being at the root of their failure to act: “It may be laudable for the Government to be fiscally responsible, but not in the very narrow ways it has chosen. The nation is facing a crisis, it’s like a slow earthquake shaking our values to the foundation. You don’t store up goodies for the future when faced with life damaging catastrophes, you invest in reversing the damage and in preventing further damage.”

Finally, is there a need for reform of how the welfare system treats people in relationships? A new report out last week challenges the “traditional” and “current rules” in which people’s eligibility for benefits is based on whether they are in “relationship in the nature of marriage” – see Sarah Robson’s Welfare system needs to change how it defines relationships – report. And for a personal version of this story, see Sarah Wilson’s The consequences of love: how finding a partner left me penniless.

The concept of a “woman’s right to choose” is at the centre of the demand for abortion liberalisation reform. Campaigners believe that neither the state nor doctors should have any say in whether a woman terminates a pregnancy. They want the current laws repealed so that the existing legal and practical barriers are removed, allowing individuals to freely obtain pregnancy terminations. And this was something promised by Jacinda Ardern during the 2017 election campaign.

However it’s not clear that this is going to be delivered. Instead, it looks more likely that only some barriers will be removed, meaning that a woman’s right to choose will be remain limited.

So far, the Government’s reform plans on abortion liberalisation are well behind schedule. Delays, produced by internal coalition negotiations, suggest that the reform agenda is in danger, and there must some risk that the promised legislation won’t get passed this year as planned.

Originally, a Cabinet decision was due at the end of last year, following the November publication of the Law Commission’s report on reform options. This report gave three options for reform – ranging from Option A (complete decriminalisation) to Option C (partial decriminalisation, based on a cut-off date of a 22-week gestation – after which a medical consultation process would still be necessary). And ever since then the Government has been suggesting that a decision is imminent.

The latest news on the abortion reform process came earlier this month in Claire Trevett’s article, Breakthrough sees possible abortion reforms back on track (paywalled). According to this, the Government appears to have decided on a reform option that would see a degree of liberalisation, with women being given the right to choose to have an abortion – without legal barriers – for the first 19 or 20 weeks of pregnancy. But after 19 or 20 weeks, any woman seeking a termination would still need to go through a consultation process with a doctor.

This amounts to the Government choosing the more conservative Option C from the Law Commission, but shifting the cut-off point forward from 22 weeks to 19 or 20. After that 19-20 weeks of pregnancy, abortion would essentially remain subject to the Crimes Act or something similar.

As Justice Minister Andrew Little said in an interview late last year, “If the threshold test is to have any meaning, there’s got to be consequences” – see Dan Satherley and Simon Shepherd’s Justice Minister Andrew Little backs removing legal restrictions on abortions up to 22 weeks. According to this report, “it’s not clear what would happen if an abortion was carried out after the 22-week threshold without meeting the statutory requirements”.

That article also points out that “During consultation almost all health professionals supported having no test.” This is also a point made by Eleanor Ainge Roy’s Guardian article, New Zealand pro-choice campaigners hail move towards abortion law reform. She reports that the Law Commission “found health practitioners and professional bodies were ‘almost unanimous’ in their support for model A.”

Furthermore, she reports that “Terry Bellamak, director of ALRANZ Abortion Rights Aotearoa, said model A was the only option that would make accessing abortion a more streamlined and dignified experience for women, many of whom found the existing system ‘degrading’.” This model – which asserts a woman’s right to choose at any stage of the gestation – is used in other countries such as Canada.

Bellamak also writes about this elsewhere, quoting Little’s justification for keeping a limit on women’s right to choose: “given the likely viability of the foetus there are public policy considerations that come into it that I think a GP should be held to when they are giving advice.” She provides her own interpretation of what Little means by this: “it looks like he’s saying women can’t be trusted not to request abortions later in pregnancy in situations where the doctor would be required to put a check on their wishes and deny their abortion in the interest of public policy. It implies women are likely to delay requesting abortions for reasons that are morally indefensible” – see: Four different perspectives on reproductive rights.

She points to the fact that “women in other countries have been deciding to receive abortion care without let or hindrance for yonks”, and therefore suggests that limiting a women’s right to abortion is “sexist” and “shows a complete lack of trust in women and pregnant people as fully autonomous human beings”. Furthermore, she argues that “the cultural narrative of a woman popping off to get an abortion on a whim at a late stage for morally indefensible reasons” is a “ridiculous lie”.

Another pro-choice campaigner, Liz Beddoe, says “Most people want the option which leaves the decision to terminate a pregnancy to the pregnant person and would enable self-referral to free and accessible services” – see: As US protection of abortion rights weakens, NZ should strengthen laws.

Beddoe is suspicious that the Government is watering down the reform agenda: “We were told by Minister of Justice Andrew Little that a decision would be announced in April. In the middle of May we have yet to hear that decision. Women are questioning what is happening behind the scenes? What rights are being traded as coalition politics pitting conservative New Zealand First politicians against Labour and the Green Party, both of which have promised reform? Will we yet again see our rights cynically traded for political favours? This is a watershed moment for women’s reproductive freedom in Aotearoa.”

A challenge is issued to the Prime Minister not to compromise: “Will the Prime Minister stand up to the misinformed, selfish zealots and deliver women a safe legal abortion service as promised? Women are watching and anything less than this, with protection of patients and health professionals from harassment, will not be forgiven. It’s time Prime Minister. This is the ‘well-being’ legislation we want.”

Most politicians are likely to favour the compromise solution of Option C. This is explained by Claire Trevett in her excellent overview article from late last year, in which she examines the orientation of various MPs and political parties to the prospect of reform – see: To the Barricades: The battle over abortion forty years on.

From this, it appears that the only MP who overtly favours complete decriminalisation of abortion is Act MP David Seymour. The Greens don’t seem to have come to a position on this, while the other parties are clearly divided. The overwhelming lesson of Trevett’s article is that virtually all politicians are treading very carefully for fear of offending voters  Even someone as normally outspoken as Judith Collins is noted as being reluctant to talk. And Jacinda Ardern, despite her promises of reform, wouldn’t be interviewed on the topic.

In contrast to the timidity of MPs on abortion reform, there seems to be a growing societal mood in favour of a “woman’s right to choose” on the matter. According to one recent poll, two-thirds of New Zealanders are in favour of a women’s right to choose – see Regan Paranihi’s Abortion survey: 66% support women’s right to choose.

A Newshub-Reid Research Poll in March also showed the majority want abortion decriminalised – see Tova O’Brien’s Revealed: Large majority of Kiwis want abortion law change.

Clearly politicians are struggling to catch up with the public on this issue. I wrote about the rise of abortion politics in New Zealand in two 2017 political roundup columns: Should abortion be decriminalised? and The uncomfortable abortion reform challenge. As I explained in these columns, there are some disappointing reasons that the issue of abortion law reform has been kept off the agenda and, although politicians lacked the courage of their convictions on this, they were being forced to confront a growing demand for change.

Late last year I also wrote about the rise in public acceptance of abortion: “Abortion has gradually become more acceptable to the wider public. Yet over that forty years politicians of all sides have effectively kicked for touch on the issue, happy with a compromise situation in which abortion laws have been draconian in theory, but liberal in practice. Therefore, the politicians – from Labour and National, alike – have simply not kept up with social progress” – see: The mild abortion “culture wars”.

In this article, I also tracked how the topic of abortion reform had heated up after a long period of inactivity. This is reflected in my research on media publications: “the number of published articles about abortion remained relatively stable since 1991, with normally about 700 published each year. But since 2017, the number of published articles mentioning “abortion” has started to skyrocket” reaching about 2000 articles last year.

Last week saw an explosion of new articles relating to abortion due to National MP Alfred Ngaro’s views on the matter being investigated. The MP shared a Facebook post comparing abortion to the holocaust, which he later expressed regret over saying abortion was, more accurately, a tragedy.  He also made a very contentious statement questioning the necessity of abortion reform: “Here’s the thing: Has any woman actually ever been made to feel like a criminal? Absolutely not. Those provisions have been there for some time”.

Ngaro also brought the discussion back to the question of when a “woman’s right to choose” begins and ends, “claiming the Government had suggested abortions up to the full term of 40 weeks as part of changes to abortion law” – see Katie Fitzgerald’s Government ‘poked the bear’ with discussion about abortion rights – Ngaro.

He argued the Government was being provocative in potentially giving women the right to choose at any point during gestation: “I tell you who poked the bear, it was this Government which decided in their recommendations they want to go from 20 weeks to 40 weeks. Now the question is do you think New Zealanders accept that? Absolutely not.”

Finally, partly in response to Ngaro’s claims, but also in reaction to the increased debate about abortion reform, there have been plenty of personal stories published of womens’ lived experiences of abortion and contraception – see, for example, Emma Espiner’s Abortion – a life on my terms, Lynn Williams’ On Abortion, and Paula Penfold’s Women are in fact made to feel criminal, Mr Ngaro.

Have the political left and supporters of the Labour-led Government been conned again? Big changes were promised in welfare reform, but with the response to the just-released working group report on the welfare system, it looks like very little is actually going to be delivered.

Of course, the left has already been feeling shocked and disillusioned by Jacinda Ardern’s capitulation over the capital gains tax proposals, which is raising serious questions about the Government’s promised “Year of Delivery”. And now the weak response to the Welfare Experts Advisory Group report is essentially “Capitulation Number Two”.

Once again, the Government has opted for caution and conservatism instead of making bold reforms recommended by experts. Leftwing supporters and those who care about a properly functioning welfare system are outraged.

The report released on Friday was radical, with a solid critique of the state of the welfare system, and 42 recommendations for fixing it. But the Government response has fallen vastly short. The Minister of Social Development, Carmel Sepuloni, has come out to say that only three of those recommendations will be taken up. Of course, she’s suggesting that more reforms might happen in the future, but few observers appear to have confidence in that eventuating.

One of the best explanations of the Government’s response is Henry Cooke’s column yesterday Greens fail to win major change with welfare review.

In terms of the three working group proposals chosen by the Government, Cooke explains these are hardily bold: “Given the sweep of the report, these changes seem pretty small. Labour and the Greens have been campaigning on removing the sanction since before the election, and have delayed doing it until this report has come back. The change won’t go into effect until April 1, 2020. The sensible abatement rate changes track with minimum wage hikes and are so non-controversial that National agree with them. New staff are hired all of the time. You can even quantify the smallness. The changes as a whole will cost $286.8m over four years. The working group estimated its full suite of changes would cost $5.2b a year – more than the Government’s entire operating allowance.”

Activist and former Green Party MP, Sue Bradford isn’t mincing her words, saying the Government’s “dismal” response to the report recommendations indicates it’s “neoliberal”, by which she means economically-rightwing and still clinging to Establishment and punitive approaches of the last few decades – see: No hope for progressive welfare reform from this government.

Bradford includes the Green Party in this critique. She says the Greens are good at saying the right thing on welfare but, when it counts, the party is wedded to neoliberal practice. Bradford concludes that for the political left, this latest capitulation proves that a new leftwing political party is necessary.

Other commentators are also acknowledging the Greens’ failure to secure welfare reform. Henry Cooke points out that the party had increased its reputation with the left and the poor on the basis of their 2017 election campaign on reforming the welfare system, but says “The Greens are not living up to Metiria Turei’s promise of transformation.” Given that they promised so much, but are delivering so little, he suggests they now “need to be asking questions of themselves”.

Disappointment with the Greens on this appears widespread amongst activists. Leftwing blogger Steve Cowan says that it’s a failure of Green Party leadership, and especially of co-leader Marama Davidson, who he says “has proven to be yet another routine establishment politician betraying the interests of the very people she claims to represent” – see: Why is Marama Davidson in Parliament?

His disillusionment is clear: “We’ve been shafted again. Watching Marama Davidson blandly smiling as Sepuloni denied beneficiaries and the poor a better and more secure future reminded me that in 2017 Davidson was making speeches at South Auckland rallies, lambasting the National Government’s failure to address growing poverty and inequality. All that passion has faded away to bland smiles and empty words trotted out about she knows about the hardship that many people are enduring and that she will continue to work hard for them.”

And for Cowan it’s not just a case of Davidson and her caucus lacking courage, but that they have essentially revealed their true colours now that they are in power: “But her ‘radicalism’, if it was ever there in the first place, has gone missing in the impenetrable centrist fog that now clings to the Green Party like a wet blanket. She displays exactly the same kind of reverence for ‘politics as usual’ centrist politics displayed by the Labour-led government and her fellow Green MPs”.

On the report and the Government response in general, Cowan is highly sceptical, suggesting there’s been an attempt to bury this embarrassing capitulation: “Was it just a coincidence that Jacinda Ardern’s engagement to Clarke Gayford was announced on the very same day that the Labour-led government announced its shocking response to the Whakamana Tangata: Restoring Dignity to Social Security in New Zealand report? If the motive really was to deflect attention that Jacinda Ardern and her government have shafted ordinary people once again, it kinda worked. The engagement news was the leading item on one of the six o’clock news bulletins (TV3’s Newshub) while it was trending number one on Twitter for most of the day, with the welfare report nowhere to be seen” – see: Government response to welfare report is a shocker.

Others have also expressed scepticism about the Government’s handling of the release of the report. Some have noted that the timing for the release and response from the Government was late on a Friday, and at a similar time to the long-anticipated (but thwarted) Pike River Mine re-entry attempt.

Auckland University economist and welfare expert Susan St John declared her suspicion: “Releasing the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report at 2pm Friday (3rd May) just before the weekend at a far-flung West Auckland venue miles from the train station was a masterstroke of political strategy”, and she complained that the actual launch that she attended was strangely uninformative – see: I am not a conspiracy theorist but….

St John suggests that the whole working group approach lacked transparency and public engagement: “For 11 months no one breathed a whisper of what the WEAG was concocting. All consultation was one way to the WEAG with no outsider trusted to respond to any of the development of ideas. In stark contrast with the Tax Working Group process, no background papers and no interim report were released. There were no public forums preceding the report, and no interviews were given”.

She reports from the launch that the audience were less than impressed with the proposals being adopted, and the timeframes involved: “The Minister’s pre-Budget announcements were breath-taking in their superficiality. There were audible gasps of disbelief when she announced that the sanction applied to sole parents who do not name the father of their children would not come in until 2020.  Another lowlight was very minor changes to the abatement thresholds that are to be phased in over 4 years.”

St John is also highly critical of the “lost opportunity” to fix many different elements of the welfare system such as Working For Families. And she suggests Labour is incapable of facing these problems with the welfare system because the party is complicit in creating many of them.

There are so many important recommendations in the report that the Government appear to be ignoring, but the biggest is benefit levels. Henry Cooke explains this best: “The report presents a coherent argument for greatly increasing benefit rates, indexing them to inflation, and reforming the way relationships are treated by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). It makes the point that relative to wages, benefit rates have fallen an extremely long way since reforms in the 1980s and 1990s. If implemented, this report would truly represent an ‘overhaul’ of the benefit system, and this Government could make a pretty good claim to being ‘transformational’.”

The issue of benefit levels is discussed by Tim Watkin in his excellent column, Another chance to be transformational rejected… Labour’s cautious welfare response. He says the report “recommended a massive 47 percent increase in current benefit levels. Those would be hugely controversial reforms… or, you could say, transformational. Because the report says if its recommendations were adopted it would lift 40 percent of children in poverty out of that plight. And that it could be done in two years.”

Watkin explains one of the reasons for the proposed increase is the increasing gap between beneficiary incomes and others: “What people seldom consider though is that since then wages and salaries have continued to grow. Super, linked to wages, has grown to. But other benefits – with any increases linked to inflation, not wage growth – have not been increased nearly as much. Until, that is, John Key and Bill English famously raised them in 2015. So the gap between work and welfare has grown since the 1990s”.

Therefore, on this rejected recommendation and many others, Watkin says Labour and the Greens are showing their real colours: “Sepuloni agrees the welfare system is not working. Greens co-leader Marama Davidson agrees the welfare system is not working. And then they commit to ignore the report’s big recommendations. They say no to up to 47 percent benefit increases, preferring ‘a staged implementation’. The call for ‘urgent change’ is rejected. Remarkably, Davidson has put her quotes into the same press release with Sepuloni, tying the Greens to this approach when they could have been dissenting from the rafters. The political and institutional reality is that no government can make these changes overnight. But the cold water thrown on this report underlines what we’ve learnt about this government in its handling of tax, its debt level, labour reform and more. It is not just incremental, it looks timid. There is certainly no sign of it being transformational.”

Once again, therefore, as with other potentially-transformative change in key areas for the political left, the Government has lost its political values and courage: “Ardern has political capital to burn after the Christchurch attacks and twice in three weeks she has chosen not to spend it. She has the political cover of National having increased benefits under Key (so just how critical could Bridges be?)… Yet Labour has chosen not to go to the wall for something it believes in. Again.”

But not all is lost. The report is going to have an ongoing impact. Max Rashbrooke writes about how the report represents a major change in thinking about beneficiaries. Previous and existing models saw “welfare recipients as akin to naughty children, needing a harsh overseer”, whereas “the experts’ report is an attempt to put a nurturing, caring assistant at the heart of the welfare system” which sees beneficiaries as needing support – see: At last welfare emphasis will move from punishment to support.

Also, although Chris Trotter bemoans that the fiscal conservatism of Finance Minister Grant Robertson is behind the Government’s rejection of progressive welfare reforms, he thinks there is still a good chance that Robertson and Sepuloni might yet be able to create a new world “of ‘active’ labour market management and planning” – see: The State and welfare: Opportunity or cost?

Finally, for a first-hand account of how well the welfare system works (or doesn’t), and how life on a benefit could be improved, see Hannah McGowan’s The dehumanising reality of life on a benefit in New Zealand.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is winning praise for her campaign to clean up the internet, and in particular for her announcement of the “Christchurch Call” Summit to be held with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris next month. And if they can come up with some meaningful and effective ways to make the internet less available to terrorists and violent extremists then this will be a major accomplishment.

Regulating the internet is notoriously difficult, however. It might be one of the big issues of our time, but no one seems to have the answers for how to do it in a way that will be both effective and satisfactory. There’s a good chance the whole episode will amount to yet another talkfest of platitudes and politicking. This is certainly the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper, who forecasts an outcome of “full, frank and meaningless words” – see: Irony to New Zealand and France’s terrorism summit next month.

Not only this, Soper suggests that the motivations for the summit are opportunistic: “The idea no doubt came from the French President Emmanuel Macron who’s been haemorrhaging in the opinion polls at home… The international voice of reason and compassion Jacinda Ardern would have immediately come to mind and the pledge she’s now calling the Christchurch Call was born.”

The Herald’s political editor takes umbrage at such scepticism, declaring this type of view out of place: “They are the sort of critic who would never start anything unless success were guaranteed. The suggestion that Ardern do nothing after the murders of 50 people in New Zealand were live-streamed and shared on social media is to deny human nature and New Zealand’s own instincts” – see: Jacinda Ardern is knee-deep in planning joint initiative with France.

Audrey Young predicts real change will emerge from a difficult area of reform: “It won’t eliminate the evils that lurk within social media. But it won’t be nothing either.” She sees it as a positive sign that Ardern and Macron are being so inclusive in their approach: “Ardern’s natural instincts are to collaborate as broadly as possible… That factor alone makes it important to get co-operation from social media themselves, rather than using heavy-handed regulation or attempting to bully the corporates into participation.”

However, as with other international agreements, the more people you bring to the table, the greater the likelihood of a watered-down outcome. And this is the point made in Tom Pullar-Strecker’s article, The devil will be in the detail of the ‘Christchurch Call’. This reports Colin Gavaghan, director of the Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies at Otago University, as cautioning against going too broadly: “The risk, he argues, is you can end up with texts that are pitched at such a level that ‘no-one could disagree with them’ but which don’t tend to mean anything in practice.”

Pullar-Strecker’s article emphasises the uniqueness of this summit, as normally the outcomes are relatively pre-determined, with a text negotiated in advance for participants to sign up to. This won’t necessarily happen in this instance.

The success or otherwise of the initiative will be determined, it seems, by how ambitious the internet regulation campaign ends up being. Ardern, herself, is very keen to see a narrow focus for the regulations, which deal specifically with the online sharing of terrorist acts. Ardern says: “This is not about freedom of expression. This is about preventing violence and extremism and terrorism online”.

This approach is easier than going down the route of attempting to take on “hate speech” and extremist politics in general. And that is also the advice of Paul Brislen: “There are a number of things they should be looking at. The trick will be narrowing it down to something that is achievable because there are so many things that are getting out of control with the world of social media that need a regulator to step in… Trying to stay focused is going to be critical” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Speculation rife on value of ‘Christchurch Call’.

But even a focus just on violence and terrorism could be incredibly difficult. The same article makes this point: “Victoria University of Wellington media studies lecturer Peter Thompson said just defining what terrorism was presented difficulties. ‘It’s not a straightforward thing to decide what is and isn’t terrorism: live-streaming mass murder, well yes, but how do you decide which groups are considered terrorists or not?’ he said.”

Rick Shera from Netsafe and Internet NZ is also pleased that the Government is focused on dealing to the narrower and less contentious issue of terrorism: “I’m glad we are sticking to violent extremism and terrorism. Once you go into fake news, damage to democracy and other forms of online harm it becomes very difficult. Freedom of speech and the US position on that make it hard to make gains, so if the target is narrow it may be easier” – see Colin Peacock’s Does social media reform have the law on its side?

In this article by Peacock, the major issue of the United States is brought into the debate. After all, the US tech companies are based there, and benefit from that country’s very strong ethos and constitutional protections of political freedoms. This is lamented by some participants in the debate. For example, Internet NZ’s chief executive Jordan Carter is quoted, saying “The nature of their black and white constitutional protections on free speech in the US – and the current state of their politics – don’t leave me with any confidence that they will be able to drive change in this area”.

Clearly, the strong US resistance to censorship and over-regulation of speech means that Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” could run into problems. And it’s not just the US Constitution that might stymie reform, as explained by tech expert and journalist Bill Bennett, in Peacock’s article: “The problem with the US is they have two things that stop them from acting. One is the First Amendment which is all about free speech and not censoring people. The second thing is something called Section 230 that gives social media companies an out. They are not responsible for things posted on their site”.

There are, however, some major debates going on in the US about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And the above article reports internet law academic Eric Goldman suggesting that any subsequent changes from that debate might be crucial: “He thinks cutbacks of Section 230’s scope do pose serious risks to free speech online. So is it the outcome of this behind-the-scenes legal argument playing out in the US right now – and not a headline-making political summit in France – which will really determine whether internet giants take responsibility for extreme content on their platforms?”

For the best discussion of these political freedom issues, see Gordon Campbell’s column, On Ardern and Macron’s campaign against violent social media content. In this, Campbell explains what might be coming after two decades of self-regulation of the internet, given the strong political appetite for serious regulation.

He worries that Ardern and co will end up going beyond just the clampdown on terrorist and extremist violence, and might produce something that impacts on general political activity: “Once you get beyond those low hanging fruit….it becomes difficult to censor online content without doing real damage to freedom of expression, and to genuine political dissent. It would be unfortunate if the best friends of the Ardern/Macron initiatives turn out to be the tyrants in countries that would (a) dearly love to see tech companies forced to hand over the keys to encryption, and (b) would readily embrace further restrictions being put on the online content their dissidents are allowed to post.”

He also believes regulation could ultimately prove unpopular, which is why Facebook and the like want it to be carried out by governments, “presumably, so that the politicians then get to wear the backlash once people realise the full implications of allowing the state to define and police the content deemed acceptable on the Net.”

Mostly likely, there will be simple progress made in Paris, such as tightening up of Facebook Live. The big question will be whether online providers end up having to do more vetting of content before it’s published, which would be of huge consequence, and what Campbell calls a “disastrous outcome”.

And he gives the example of his own media platform, Scoop: “Every year, Scoop also publishes close on a million New Zealand press releases issued by all and sundry. In that respect, Scoop functions as a national community noticeboard. It rejects press releases that contain libels and/or socially inflammatory hate speech. Imagine though, if Scoop was required to pre-check every one of those press releases for accuracy, balance and for whether or not they might hurt the feelings of people in public office. It would not be remotely practical or affordable for Scoop to do so – and its efforts would be gamed by those with malice in mind against the organisations issuing the press releases in question.”

Similarly, Internet NZ’s Jordan Carter suggests that relying on artificial intelligence to vet and remove content could be a problem: “Applying overly tight automated filtering would lead to very widespread overblocking. What if posting a Radio New Zealand story about the Sri Lanka attacks over the weekend on Facebook was automatically blocked? Imagine if a link to a donations site for the victims of the Christchurch attacks led to the same outcome? How about sharing a video of TV news reports on either story?”.

Carter has his own list of “six thoughts” about how to make the regulation of the internet work, including keeping the scope of the exercise narrow, and striking the right balance between “preventing the spread of such abhorrent material on the one hand, and maintaining free expression on the other” – see: How to stop the ‘Christchurch Call’ on social media and terrorism falling flat.

There really will be difficulties, no matter what approach is chosen. Claire Trevett points out: “As with climate change, making the right noises and getting the desired results are two very different things. It will be something akin to Hercules wrestling the Hydra. As soon as one head is chopped off, another two will appear” – see: PM Jacinda Ardern gathers allies to wrestle the social-media Hydra.

And it’s the politicians themselves who might have the most to lose, given their increasing preference to use Facebook and the like “to bypass the filter of the traditional media and speak directly to supporters and voters. This has some pluses for those politicians – but not necessarily for democracy. Over-reliance on social media over journalistic media allows them to escape questioning on issues they may not want to face. Macron has also come in for criticism for trying to stifle the ‘Yellow Vest’ protest use of social media. Ardern herself has been known to vote with her fingers when it comes to expressing her disapproval with certain social media platforms.”

Facebook and Instagram have been key parts of Ardern’s campaigning, and Trevett points out that “in the last election, Labour spent $475,000 on advertising on Facebook – four times as much as National – as it tried to appeal to younger voters.”

Finally, for the lighter side of the debate and some apparent irregularities in social media regulation, see Hamish McNeilly’s Gone in 20 minutes: Facebook strips student nude mag cover and Andrew Gunn’s We’re taking urgent steps to address this.

1960 was a big year for my adopting parents. First came the infertility diagnosis. Then a new baby arrived with little warning and no fanfare. Followed within days by a new refrigerator.

I was one of over 103,000 New Zealand babies forcibly removed from my single mother. Her dying mother sent her to the doctor’s house with a couple of months to spare. The generous Dr Gerald Gleeson put her to work cleaning and scrubbing. Weeks before I was born he promised me away to the “an attractive young couple who belong to the Church of England.”

It was a typical story. The same thing happened in Canada. They describe it as one of their “most agonising scandals and one which for decades was covered up – the forced adoption of hundreds of thousands of babies born to unmarried mothers.” A full-scale inquiry is ongoing.

In New Zealand, we pretend it never happened.

In the total absence of government action, apology or investigation, I’ve been unraveling New Zealand’s history of forced adoption.

We’ve wrapped adoption in secrecy, tied it up with clichés and obfuscated the truth at every turn. We’ve conflated orphans with the illegitimate. We’ve never once paused to inquire about outcomes.

With so much around adoption shrouded in legal black holes and social expectation, most adopted people struggle to talk about it. Not only their own but the practice itself.

If you experience a difficult time in your natural born family, people understand. A violent father? A cold mother? There’s plenty of support for that trauma. .

But if you’re adopted that toxic family story takes on another element. When you try to speak about it, someone will ask the ‘what-ifs’. What if you’d been aborted? What if your natural family were worse? You could have grown up in an orphanage? In care? On the streets?

This is often followed by the, “I know a happy adoptee,” narrative. As if that one person’s experience is more significant than everything you’ve lost. And all the wrongs of being taken from your mother and stripped of your identity are irrelevant.

But what if you do grow up in a loving adopted family? And you really are that ‘happy adopted person?’

In many ways, this makes it more difficult. If you feel even the slightest bit ‘not right’ in your happy family there’s nowhere to place those feelings. To express doubts, to acknowledge a yearning for blood in the face of good parenting is almost impossible. Even to yourself.

And so the fog descends. The disconnect between your inner life and external expectations is vast. Often the fog is preferable.

Whether you recognise it or not, adoption is trauma. In truth both the idyllic and the unfit family is invested in being better than the mother they took you from. The person you might have been, the life you would have lived, if not for them, is rarely acknowledged. But no matter the quality of your upbringing, we all live with a sense of a yearning for blood connections.

For me, as young teen all I wanted was someone who looked like me. I had to wait until I gave birth to my first daughter. She arrived with fine hair and delicate features. But then I realised there were no photos of me until I was three months old. I had no idea if I looked like her as a new baby. No reason, my adopting mother said, casually, when asked. “I was too busy to take photos.”

Except for that camera-worthy new refrigerator. It was either me or the fridge. It’s obvious who won. I have the photo to prove it.

– ref. The baby or the fridge – https://www.barbarasumner.nz/blog/2019/2/13/the-baby-or-the-fridge

As a child, my family saw the musical Oliver. For days after, my adopting mother hummed and sang the theme tune:

Consider yourself one of us
Consider yourself at home
Consider yourself one of the family ….etc etc

The song is a bit of an earworm. I’d forgotten it and the memory until recently when I heard it on the radio.

If you’ve seen the film (or read Dickens), you’ll know that being ‘one of us in Oliver was conditional on acting the part. You had to abide by their code of thievery and obey Fagin, the orphan master.

It makes sense. Like Fagin’s gang, we humans are tribal.

We gather with those who share our values. We’re always on the lookout for casual signifiers of belonging.

When we have kids, family and friends scan the scrunched face of your newborn for resemblance. His father’s nose, her mother’s eyes. When we pull out baby photos of close family and compare them, we recognise the child as one of us.

But does it work the other way?

For a pre-verbal baby, it’s all about smell and sounds. Studies reveal that the basis of bonding is the mothers scent..

Familiar odours wired into a babies brain affect nerve pathways and brain development. One researcher found that in the first few hours after birth, a baby identifies her mother by her smell.

In another study, day-old babies recognised their mother’s voice. They connected pacifiers to tape recorders. One sucking pattern turned on their mother’s voice, while another activated a strangers voice. Guess which sucking pattern the babies used?

So how does this all work for a person removed from their mother for adoption?

In The Primal Wound, Nancy Verrier says there’s an assumption a baby knows nothing. Any deprivation can be overcome by the adoptive parents. But for the infant, absence of her mother is the same as death. She goes through a withdrawal process as her most basic need for connection goes unmet. The loss of the original mother becomes imprinted in the child’s psyche and cells.

Growing up adopted in a stranger family I’ve experienced first hand how deep that loss and grief runs. How everything from smell to sport was wrong. And how the things we ignored, such as lack of family resemblance were the unspoken arrows of daily life.

It’s not easy for the adopting mother either. They also are grieving the child they could not have. They lack hormone bonding. They miss out on that recognition and satisfaction a new mother feels, despite the trials and exhaustion of birth? No one comments on how her baby looks like her. No one expects her child to be like her in any natural way. Instead, she must work extra hard to imprint her culture on the little stranger. While convincing herself that her experience is no different than for a biological mother.

This is the dirty secret of stranger adoption. Adoption is rarely a first choice. It’s not the same as biological parenting. No matter your parenting skills or commitment, this is not the child you would have had if you could have your own.

You won’t read that in pro-adoption literature. You cannot expect the adopted person to become the child you could not have.

I believe it does something to the adopting mother, creating an atmosphere of rote caring. The mother working hard to be seen to love the child she has no connection to.

In “Blueprint, How DNA Makes Us Who We Are,” Robert Plomin, concludes that babies are not balls of clay. Plomin is a behavioural geneticist. He says babies are not shaped by their parents after birth.  You arrive with imprinted traits from your biological parents.

His research proves that nurturing has little effect on the person you become. Children take after their first parents, not their adoptive parents. From cognitive skills and interests to personality traits. They even resemble their first parents in non-genetic traits. Television watching for instance and likelihood of getting divorced. “This comes as no surprise to first parents who meet their lost offspring. But it’s heartening and reassuring to have our impressions supported by scientific research.”  https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/29/so-is-it-nature-not-nurture-after-all-genetics-robert-plomin-polygenic-testing

So how does an adopted person cope with this? They fake it.

The fantasy of the happy adoptee is ingrained in our society. It becomes the job of the adopted person to prove this story true. To salve the wounds of the adopting parent’s infertility. To act as if they are the missing child, to bend and fold and adjust themselves to fit into the adoptor’s family. As if they have no other mother. As if they are indeed one of them.

Of course, someone will jump up and say “I had good adoption. That was not my experience.’

I’m happy they got lucky. But that’s the point. They were fortunate not to experience abuse in addition to what every adoptee already endures.

Because adoption itself is inherently abusive. To say I had a good adoption is like saying I had a good car accident or a good mugging. Of course, some are worse than others. But they’re all bad things. Every adopted person has experienced separation trauma and had their rights violated. Even if they are not ready to acknowledge it. Adoption itself is the trauma.”

I’d describe stranger adoption as a state of suspended animation. You learn early that your inner need for authenticity will never be met. So you split that part of yourself of. And go through the motions. In adoption circles, this is the ‘good adoptee syndrome’. Your real self packed down tight while you smile and wave at the world.

The idea of being a stranger within your family is not limited to children and parents. In my experience, the wider family feels it too. You are a cuckoo in their extended family nest, treated with suspicion, your provenance a mystery.

Throughout history, humans have distrusted outsiders. We’ve always had city walls and borders and the need to identify ourselves. We’ve always had this innate sense of the good us versus the untrustworthy them. Just as Charles Dickens characters understood.

In the absence of blood ties, the only signifier of being one of us is your behaviour. So be a good adoptee, play your part and all will be well with the world.

– ref. Consider youself one of us – https://www.barbarasumner.nz/blog/2019/1/15/consider-youself-one-of-us

By Blessen Tom

Pacific media freedom and ignorance of Pacific issues by mainstream media in New Zealand are growing challenges for the region, says a journalism academic

“There are so many issues in the Pacific that are simply ignored by the mainstream media,” Pacific Media Centre director Professor Robie bluntly told the two-day Oceans and Islands conference for Pacific researchers that ended in the Fale Pasifika at Auckland University today.

He cited the ongoing human rights situation in West Papua – which will be marked tomorrow with flag raising ceremonies across New Zealand – and the recent New Caledonian independence referendum as examples of poorly covered issues.

READ MORE: The NZ news item that sparked the Scott Waide saga

The conference was hosted by the NZ Institute for Pacific Research, a NZ government-funded consortium of Auckland University, Otago University and Auckland University of Technology (AUT).

A Maserati luxury sedan as portrayed in the controversial news item shown in EMTV. Image: EMTV screenshot

Addressing the centre’s research and public strategy, Dr Robie also shared his concerns about media freedom in the Pacific region and highlighted this week’s dramatic developments in Papua New Guinea in the wake of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference.

-Partners-

Scott Waide, one of the country’s most high profile and influential journalists, was secretly suspended over broadcasting a New Zealand television news item that criticised government spending on 40 Maserati luxury sedans.

Waide, deputy regional news editor of EMTV and who blogs on social issues in his My Land, My Country website, was reinstated a day after news of his suspension was leaked through social media networks, sparking a flurry of protests in international media.

“This outrageous meddling by the state-owned Telikom company’s board was kept quiet for a week until it finally went viral last Sunday.

‘Blatant censorship’
“This blatant act of censorship – publicly defended by Prime Minister Peter O’Neill – rebounded heavily on the government.”

Dr Robie, who is also the convenor of the PMC’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project in collaboration with international press watchdogs such as the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders, criticised corporate and political inference in PNG’s news and current affairs media.

He said what had happened was salutary for Pacific press freedoms. While he described the reinstatement for Waide as a victory for media freedom in the region, he said the journalists’ own reflective comments were “lessons for the rest of the Pacific”.

AUT’s Professor David Robie … critical of political and corporate “meddling” with Pacific media freedom. Image: Blessen Tom/PMC

“Papua New Guinea is a democracy and the media is free to hold those in authority to account,” Waide had said on his blog. “This means highlighting flaws in policy and making sure mistakes are pointed out and corrected. It is an essential part of our democracy.”

Dr Robie cited the Waide suspension as an example of some of the research, publication and storytelling provided by the PMC.

“We try to give lot more storytelling with Pacific voices and Pacific context,” he said.

“We try to provide an outlet for Pacific views and also information right across the region.”

Professional development
AUT’s PMC in the School of Communication Studies operated as independent university-based educational media by providing space for postgraduate students to have their stories published and broadcast for professional development.

This had contributed a lot to Pacific storytelling, he said.

“If we do things independently media-wise, there are a lot of stories that we can tell that much of the mainstream just ignores.”

PMC publishes the following media:

• An online general news and current affairs website called Asia-Pacific Report and PMC Online which focuses on media issues and research.

• Its own YouTube (more than 200,000 viewers) and Soundcloud channels.

• Pacific Journalism Review, a peer reviewed journal, the only New Zealand-based publication specialising in journalism, media issues, communication and diversity in the South Pacific, Asia Pacific, Australia and New Zealand.

PJR is ranked on the SCOPUS metrics database and is in its 25th year of publication and is hosted on the open access indigenous research platform Tuwhera at Auckland University of Technology.

• Pacific Journalism Monographs, a peer-reviewed research companion to Pacific Journalism Review, which publishes longer research projects in an online and booklet format.

• Southern Cross, a weekly radio programme on Pacific affairs run by the PMC on Radio 95bfm at the University of Auckland.

Strong links
The PMC also has strong links with the University of the South Pacific journalism programme (Fiji) and Gadjah Mada University’s Centre for Southeast Asian Studies in Indonesia and the Asian Media Information and Communication Centre in the Philippines, and community publishing partnerships with organisations such as RNZ Pacific.

Professor Robie also mentioned PMC’s three-year-old Bearing Witness climate change project and talked about its “outstanding results” by award-winning postgraduate students reporting environmental issues.

He screened the trailer of Banabans of Rabi – A Story of Survival, a short documentary by Hele Ikimotu and Blessen Tom that was premiered at the Nuku’alofa International Film festival last week.

The inaugural Oceans and Islands conference concluded today.

Sri Krishnamurthi and Blessen Tom of the Pacific Media Centre are working as part of a PMC partnership with the NZ Institute for Pacific Research.

AUT’s Professor David Robie with two colleagues at the NZIPR Oceans and Islands conference. Image: NZIPR

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz