"It is strange that bars and restaurants can open but churches are limited to just ten people", said Fr Pete Roe the Parish Administrator of St Francis of Assisi parish of Ohariu, Wellington.

Roe says the thriving parish normally has over 1,000 attendees and was already struggling with how to cater for congregations of what it thought would be one hundred.

"But now it's just ten, and it's the limit the Government has put on one table in a restaurant", Roe said.

He observed that Churches generally have more space than restaurants.

With no projection on when Churches might be allowed even one hundred Roe says that Churches are left in limbo.

"Do we have to wait for Level One?" he asked.

Roe is sensitive to those who at this point may feel uncomfortable about coming out of lockup straight back to church but says it is ultimately about people's choice.

He admits that some parish procedures will need to change. For example, contact tracing would be a little strange for parishioners but said that it is not an impossibility.

"We know it's not business as usual and there's an element of new wine and new wineskins in these times", Roe said, referring to Matthew 9:17.

Last evening the New Zealand Catholic Bishops also expressed surprise at Jacinda Ardern's decision.

"Many people will be disappointed in this news of more restricted gatherings than expected but others will be grateful for more time to prepare safely," the bishops commented on Facebook.

The bishops are inviting on the faithful to reflect on Romans 12:12, "Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer".

They say they are looking at the details of the announcement with urgency.

Little churches

The decision to limit church congregations to ten means the Wellington Ohariu parish will further its investigation into a concept it is calling Little Churches.

"Normally Churches are the opposite of little; they are for all-comers, yet we're being limited to in effect minister to the few," said Roe.

Roe acknowledges that not everyone will be comfortable with the Little Churches concept.

Little churches is an alternative way of gathering for worship based on the practice of the early Christians as recorded in The Acts of Apostles.

As part of a parish survey, the leadership team in St Francis of Assisi parish of Ohariu, Wellington is asking for parishioners for feedback on a proposal to establish little churches.

The little churches concept is a limited assembly of up to 10 of parishioners gathering in a home for worship that includes prayer and possibly to receive the Eucharist.

In support of the idea the parish notes The Acts of Apostles records:

• "Every day, they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favour of all the people". (Acts 2:46 -47).
• "Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah". (Acts 5:42)

"The model of Little Churches can be considered as being akin to a parish ecclesia (assembly) in which the gathering happens in many different rooms," the parish says in its newsletter.

The parish has identified several practical issues that need to be resolved, including:

• Identification of leaders
• Identification of participants
• Protocols around people meeting safely in homes
• Protocols around the safe distribution of the communion hosts
• Preparation of a worship outline that will give facilitators some direction and
  confidence in running such a group.

The St Francis of Assisi leaderships hopes that in facilitating the establishment of Little Churches, they will become like living cells, both nurturing and being sustained by the body as a whole.

The team say they realise that the implementation of the concept of Little Churches will need to develop.

They also acknowledge there are some whom it may pose too high a risk, and there will be some to whom the idea will not appeal.

Source

• Supplied; St Francis of Assisi Ohariu Parish
• Facebook
• Image: tuimotu.org

Given the way he has chewed through Jacinda Ardern's old policies, maybe we should instead call him the Wood Chipper: big, gnarly policy offcuts are fed in, and out comes a handy pile of pie-related photoshoots and small-target appeals to swing voters.

Judging by last Thursday's poverty statistics, however, Hipkins has a new problem from the past to test his well-honed political skills.

When Labour came to power, it made a big play about addressing child hardship.

It was, Ardern made clear, a moral stain on the country, as well as an appalling waste of potential.

Making herself child poverty reduction minister, Ardern set her government immensely demanding targets.

Ever since the Rogernomics reforms of the 1980s, and the cruel benefit cuts of the 1991 Mother of All Budgets, New Zealand has had some of the developed world's worst child poverty rates.

When Ardern came to power, the number of children living below the poverty line - often defined as half the typical household's income, because that's the point where paying the bills gets unmanageable - was 16.5%, or one in six.

By 2028, she wanted that down to just 5%, or one in 20.

This would represent an extraordinary accomplishment, slashing the amount of misery experienced by struggling families and taking the country from among the developed world's worst performers to among its best.

In the early years of her government, things went well.

The Families Package put $1 billion a year into poor households' pockets, through the Best Start payment, increases to Working for Families, and other policies.

The poverty rate dropped from 16.5% to around 13% in 2020, lifting 30,000 children above the line and into a better life.

Since then, though, progress has ground to a halt.

The child poverty rate, last Thursday's data showed, was about 12% in June last year.

On all measures, it was essentially flat between 2021 and 2022.

On the one hand, it is a testament to the government that, during a pandemic, it did not allow overall poverty rates to spike.

Some people may ask how the official figures can say as much, given that the media are full of stories of spiralling foodbank use and the catastrophe that is emergency motel housing.

But the two stories are not inconsistent.

Max Rashbrooke

The most vulnerable people have, during the pandemic, found things unbearably hard; their misery, the depth of their poverty, has clearly increased.

But at the same time, tens if not hundreds of thousands of families have benefited from Labour's ongoing minimum wage increases, tax-credit rises, and a $100-a-week boost to the core benefit since 2018.

That has helped lift, or at least sustain, their incomes, resulting in a flat overall child poverty rate.

Even that, though, poses real problems for Hipkins. Continue reading

• Max Rashbrooke is a senior associate at the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington-Te Herenga Waka.

On the way home, rather than avoid the CBD and take the most direct route onto the Hutt motorway, I decided for no particular reason to go through town.

I knew about the protest convoy that had rolled into town earlier that day but assumed it would have been all over by four in the afternoon.

Ha! More fool me.

I intended to drive up Molesworth St but found my way blocked by protest vehicles of all shapes and sizes, from massive trucks down to cars that looked as if they were rarely driven further than the nearest supermarket.

Most were bedecked with flags - New Zealand flags, tino rangatiratanga flags and others that I didn't recognise - and slogans.

The area around Parliament was hopelessly clogged.

No one was directing traffic (I didn't see a single cop), but an escape route opened up through the bus marshalling area at the bottom of Lambton Quay and I followed a line of cars through to Thorndon Quay and the open road.

Five days later, the protesters are still there.

More than 120 have been arrested for trespassing, and some illegally parked vehicles have been moved.

Others have been ticketed by council parking wardens, escorted by police. But despite violent clashes with the police on Thursday, more demonstrators kept arriving yesterday and it was obvious the occupants of the protest camp on the lawn in front of Parliament were in no hurry to leave.

What the hell is going on here? Wellington district police commander Superintendent Corrie Parnell described the protest as unprecedented, and I think he's probably right.

Admittedly there have been bigger protest rallies.

I remember massive union marches to Parliament during the industrial unrest of the late 1960s and 70s - in particular, one that followed the Arbitration Court's nil wage order in 1968.

Protests against the Vietnam War, the Security Intelligence Service and the 1981 Springbok tour also attracted thousands - far more, I would guess, than we saw on Tuesday*.

Students and unionists typically made up the bulk of the protesters.

But what happened in Wellington this week was different.

The protesters of the 60s, 70s and 80s made their point, let off steam and drifted off to the pub.

There was anger, but it was often tempered by jollity and humour, especially on those union marches. The mood this time seems darker and more febrile.

And the differences go far beyond that.

The public always knew what those protests were about. It was generally clear who organised them and what they were trying to achieve, even if their objectives were sometimes fanciful.

By way of contrast, the organisers of the so-called Freedom Convoy have kept a profile so low as to be invisible.

There seems to be no official spokesman or spokeswoman. Not until today did I learn on Stuff about the identity of at least one of the key figures.

Parnell has remarked on an "absence of leadership" that made it hard for police to deal with organisers.

Yet someone initiated and co-ordinated it.

These things don't happen magically and spontaneously.

Who's behind the protest, and why have they apparently been reluctant to step out from the shadows?

Public understanding of the protest, and possibly even sympathy for it, might be enhanced if someone was prepared to step forward and coherently explain their purpose.

It's called transparency, and its absence breeds suspicion.

Ah yes, their purpose.

That's another thing.

While the protest is nominally about the unfairness of the vaccination mandate that stops the unvaxxed from participating in society, even to the point of preventing them from earning a living, the message has been blurred by a miscellany of other grievances, not all of them related: Three Waters, Donald Trump's supposedly stolen election and Maori sovereignty, to name just three. Plus there's a strong element of religious fervour.

If there's a common factor, it's resentment and distrust of what is seen as an authoritarian government.

This hostility extends to people who are seen as agents of those in power - most notably the news media.

In fact it's possible that the reason we haven't heard much from the protest organisers is that reporters have been unwilling, or perhaps too frightened, to seek them out, preferring to get their information from official sources such as the police and politicians.

The result is a one-sided view that leaves us inadequately informed about the nature of the event, and the protesters more convinced than ever that the media are aligned with the government against them.

And just as the motivation for the protest hasn't always been obvious, so too there has been a lack of clarity about the objective - a point made by John Minto, who should know a thing or two about protests.

Minto says the Freedom Convoy lacks a strategy and an objective and is therefore bound to fail.

That might be an overstatement, but it's certainly true that the public is unlikely to get behind a protest if they don't know what its purpose is.

This brings us back to the lack of a spokesman or spokeswoman to clearly articulate the protesters' grievance(s) and objective(s).

Presumably, we can assume that if nothing else, the protesters at the very least want to attract wider public support - but there again, they blew it.

New Zealanders generally support the right to protest and may even take the view that the grounds of Parliament are a symbolically powerful place to do it, regardless of Trevor Mallard's preciousness.

But tolerance of the right to protest soon runs out when the protesters obstruct other New Zealanders from going about their lawful business, and it runs out even more quickly when protesters abuse people for exercising their freedom of choice by wearing a mask, or when they lose their temper with café and shop workers who refuse to serve them because laws over which they have no control say they can't.

That's no way to build public goodwill.

There's a massive PR problem, right there.

The majority of the protesters may be polite and non-aggressive - in fact, I'm sure they are; but if a minority exhibits arrogance, irrational anger and provocative behaviour verging on hysteria, that becomes the defining characteristic of the event.

As I was writing this, an acquaintance who supports the protest sent me a link to a 50-minute video in which he wandered among the crowd interviewing people, apparently at random.

It's easy to dismiss the protesters as nutters, conspiracy theorists and people with an anger management problem, all of which is almost certainly true of a few; but many of the interviewees struck me as calm, articulate, intelligent and motivated by valid, deeply felt beliefs.

The thought occurred to me that if the mainstream media had taken the trouble to do what the video-maker had done, the public would have a far more accurate picture of this otherwise perplexing event.

Sure, there was some wildly emotive rhetoric and hyperbole.

One man referred to his grandfather who fought in the Second World War - allusions to New Zealand soldiers risking their lives for freedom seem almost obligatory in this context - and said "We're fighting World War Three".

He was worried about the Pfizer vaccine making girls sterile.

Another protester referred to MPs as "pieces of sh.." and one expressed contempt for the "gutless ....ing police" (exactly what he expected them to do wasn't clear.)

But others talked about losing their jobs, having to take their kids out of school, being excluded from family gatherings and being denied access to community facilities such as libraries and swimming pools. Some of it made painful listening.

These people feel mainstream society has made them outcasts as a result of decisions sincerely made according to their conscience.

We may disapprove of their beliefs, but at least we can try to understand and not reflexively condemn them as pariahs.

Our attitude to the protesters may be seen as a test of our true tolerance of diversity.

Incidentally, the video I refer to was removed from YouTube hours after being posted.

The video-maker was suspended for 10 days, ostensibly for violating community standards, and put on notice that he risked being banned permanently.

And we wonder why people like the Freedom Convoy protesters get paranoid about the suppression of minority views …

The novelist Lloyd Jones has no such problems getting published.

In an open letter printed in the country's biggest-selling newspaper, he expressed a coldly elitist disdain for the protesters - a rabble, he called them - and implied they were no longer New Zealanders.

"Prime Minister Ardern says you are part of New Zealand," Jones wrote.

"I beg to differ. You are of New Zealand, but longer part of it."

"How dare they?" was the tone of Jones' polemic. It was a chilling demonstration of the ease with which people who think of themselves as liberals can morph into excuse-makers for authoritarianism and enforcers of approved orthodoxy.

This is how the marginalisation, and ultimately the persecution of outsiders, begins.

We're surely better than that.

• Karl du Fresne has been in journalism for more than 50 years. He is now a freelance journalist and blogger living in the Wairarapa region of New Zealand.
• First published by Karl du Fresne. Republished with permission.

*Paradoxically, probably the biggest protest march of all was the "Kiwis Care" march of 1981, when 22-year-old sales rep Tania Harris led 50,000 people down Queen St. I say "paradoxically" because it was more in the nature of an anti-protest protest, motivated by public anger over militant unionism. It dwarfed a union march down the same street the previous day, when bystanders booed and hissed at the 4000 marchers.

From December 3, people wanting to attend church services, gatherings, hospitality events, gyms and those wanting to avail themselves of close contact businesses will need the My Vaccine Pass to prove they have been double-vaccinated.

Those responsible for such occasions who fail to enforce vaccination requirements will face a fine of up to $15,000.

On Tuesday, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood announced the NZ Pass Verifier - an app that can be used on mobile devices to verify the holder of the My Vaccine Pass.

The NZ Pass Verifier is designed to enable churches and those organising gatherings and hospitality events to stop people who don't meet the vaccination requirements from entering high-risk situations and venues under the ‘traffic light' system.

However, leaders of church communities across the country are expressing concern and confusion about how to implement the My Vaccine Pass.

Nigel Cottle, a church leader and the general manager of Crave Café, told RNZ that he is nervous about implementing the new system. He says he is going to take it on himself to stand at the door to check My Vaccine passes.

"My hope is that people have a generosity to the staff because it's not their decision, but they are having to outwork the implications of the government policy which in general we are supportive of."

Cottle's concern is echoed by a number of Catholic clergy around the country. "We have greeters at the front door, not bouncers," a priest told CathNews.

"We understand the seriousness of the situation, but turning people away goes against the grain.

"We're in the business of welcoming people," he said.

He is a little critical of the recent bishops' statement that some see creating different categories of Mass-goers.

Another who is supportive of the My Vaccine passport told CathNews he thinks it is important that the Church changes its language and understanding about masses for the vaccinated and un-vaccinated.

"It's important the Church places the emphasis on people gathering, of people congregating, rather than having masses for the vaccinated and un-vaccinated", he said.

"It's also not just about Mass", he said. "Christmas is coming, traditionally a time for people to go to confession. I'm not sure how social distancing is going to work inside the confessional.

"People normally speak quietly during confession - I don't know how speaking quietly and face masks will go.

"We don't want everyone to hear," he said with a grin.

Another priest told CathNews that he is yet to hear from his diocese about what to do when an unvaccinated person without a My Vaccine Pass wants to join the vaccinated congregation for Mass.

"There's nothing. Policy is fine, but it needs to be supported. If you will the ends, you will the means.

"What do we do if an unvaccinated person insists on joining the congregation?

"We don't want disagreements at the door of the church, we don't want to be the State's police.

"What do we do?", he asked.

One priest told CathNews that ultimately if a non-vaccinated person insisted on joining the vaccinated group he would consider not proceeding with the Mass.

"This virus doesn't care if people are at Mass or not. It loves groups of people. With a big congregation we've got the safety of the whole congregation to consider," he said.

The priest said he was earlier in conversation with a parishioner who observed that scanning both the Covid sign and then having to have her My Vaccine Pass scanned is going to take a bit longer to get into Church.

"Hope you have lots of Covid signs and lots of people scanning, and it's not raining," she told her parish priest.

The priest said his parishioner is picking there is going to be chaos.

"Hardly a vote of confidence," he said.

The experience of Church ministers is being echoed by Francis Tipene of Tipene Funerals.

He's questioning whether the My Vaccine Pass and traffic light system will make things easier for grieving whanau or more difficult.

Covid has meant significant change for tangi - from storing tupapaku for weeks on end in the hopes of alert level shifts to allow for a tangi to having whaikorero on Zoom. Many have found this very difficult.

Tipene says navigating through the policy changes has not only been tough on them but on the people they serve.

The church ministers' confusion is not helped by the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins both saying venue organisers requiring Covid-19 vaccination passes will be able to check them visually instead of using an official app if they wish to, but the Ministry of Health disagreeing saying that vaccination passes would need to be scanned to allow entry.

"Visually checking passes isn't enough to allow entry. Scanning someone's pass proves that it is authentic, valid and has not expired," said the Ministry of Health on its website.

However, on Wednesday Adern contradicted the Ministry of Health.

"You can sight, of course, someone's vaccine pass. If you have any concerns, you can ask for verifying ID if you would like," she said.

"[The app is] a handy tool to use because it gives you confidence that the pass you're being shown is indeed a valid pass, but it's not a requirement," she said.

On Wednesday night, the Government passed 'under urgency' legislation that seriously curbs the freedoms of unvaccinated people.

The legislation was passed without the usual parliamentary scrutiny, even drawing criticism from the government's Speaker, Trevor Mallard.

Sources

• Supplied
• Stuff
• RNZ
• Stuff
• RNZ
• NZ Herald
• Stuff
• Stuff
• Stuff

The vocally loud and unmasked protesters took over the Capital's streets and pavements as they snaked their way from Wellington's Civic Square, through Mercer and Willis Streets and down Lambton Quay to Parliament.

At one point it seemed there would be no end to the protest as more and more people just kept coming.

They were very loud.

A local business person told CathNews it was one of the largest protests in Wellington she has seen for a while.

The protestors' message was clear.

They were freedom marchers; chanting a range of phrases in opposition to what they labelled an experimental Pfizer vaccine and the vaccine mandate.

They protested the lack of choice for other vaccines, and a strong distrust for Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern.

The pro-Government and uninquiring role of the media also featured prominently in the protest; one placard saying the "Media is the virus".

Many also opposed the vaccine roll-out for children, with one young person emblazoned in a hand-painted T-shirt reading: "My mother calls the shots".

Others protested lockdowns, business closures, mental health and the rights of New Zealanders being trampled on.

One protester told CathNews she was there to support Aucklanders' whose mental health is under pressure and their livelihoods in jeopardy.

"Jacinda's not interested in Auckland, Aucklanders and their struggle.

"Her kindness is just for the cameras, and is fake", she said.

Also among the protestors were a number of religious fundamentalists, claiming New Zealand had lost faith in a God who will protect us all.

Commenting on the role of pentecostal protest, senior lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Waikato, Fraser Macdonald says Pentecostals seem unwilling and are unable to accept epidemiological explanations and strategies.

"Pentecostals' steadfast assertion that the raw power of the Holy Spirit will prevail over the principalities of darkness has run up against the cultural and environmental realities of the modern world", he writes.

Macdonald's comments were amplified, Tuesday by a protester who told CathNews: "They've removed Jesus from the Parliamentary prayer and the vaccine is all part of a new world order, Satin's agenda".

This fundamentalist pentecostal agenda is however at odds with mainstream churches; Cardinal John Dew again today is urging people to get vaccinated in order to help keep themselves and others safe.

Speaking with a Wellingtonian after the event, a woman said she's re-thinking what pro-choice means.

"I'm pro-choice on everything.

"Choice is good, but these people really annoy me", she volunteered.

"They're making me think about what being pro-choice actually means.

"Do they have any sense of social responsibility?" she posed.

"This protest was just socially irresponsible", she said through her mask.

Other reactions also condemned the protest, calling it "shocking" and those involved as having a "toxic underbelly".

Among those reacting was Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who dismissed the participants, saying they did not represent the vast bulk of New Zealanders whom she thanked for getting vaccinated.

National's leader, Judith Collins however was more moderate, saying some of the messages were unhelpful, but that the protesters highlighted an issue of trust.

"There are people who don't trust the vaccine, who don't trust Pfizer, and who don't trust the Government".

"It is best not to dismiss them, it is best to deal with their concerns", said Collins.

On Monday, Singapore announced that anyone who is unvaccinated by choice will no longer receive free Covid-19 treatment.

Sources

• Supplied
• NZ Herald
• Stuff

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Justice Minister Kris Faafoi contradicted each other about what the proposals said, and Ardern has admitted the government could have been clearer in its communications.

Some worthy efforts have been made to tackle the substance of the proposals, but RNZ's Mediawatch noted much of the initial coverage focused on this political argie-bargie.

Instead, we'll look at exactly what the six proposals say - one proposal at a time, with a focus specifically on what new laws would look like - then explore why it's so confusing and what happens next.

Some provisos

Before we get started, bear in mind there are already some other laws that apply to harmful speech including the Summary Offences Act 1981, the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, the Harassment Act 1997 and the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act 1993.

Keep in mind also that none of what has been proposed is final - the ministry is seeking feedback and there's no guarantee the law, if it is enacted, will look like this. At this point it's not a law, it's not an Act, it's not even a Bill.

Instead, it's a discussion document aimed at seeking opinions before the ministry comes up with a law change, after that was recommended by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque attacks.

Less than three weeks remain on this round of consultation, with submissions closing on 6 August.

The commission identified some gaps in the current laws that leave some people facing regular abuse with no way to have the courts do anything about it.

It also suggested increasing penalties imposed for hate-motivated crimes, but that is not dealt with by the proposals below.

The Justice Ministry's discussion document largely focuses on the problems of the current laws and what the new laws aim to do, but - and this is perhaps one reason for the confusion - most of it largely does not give the specific wording of what is being proposed. This makes reading the document somewhat like having a set of directions without knowing where you're going to end up.

However, in the second appendix is a chart that includes the six proposed changes to be made, what the current laws are like, and a section of notes on each proposal (but not in that order).

To keep it simple we'll largely focus on the result.

Proposal 1: Who it applies to

The wording of both section 61 and the proposed new section 131 (see Proposal 2 below) would be changed so that they apply to communications aimed at certain groups of persons in or coming to Aotearoa New Zealand who are protected from discrimination by section 21 of the Human Rights Act.

Instead of outlawing certain communications about people based on colour, race, ethnicity or nationality alone, the law would protect the groups protected from discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act.

That could include discrimination on the basis of:

• Sex or sexual orientation *
• Marital status or family status
• Religious belief or ethical belief
• Colour, race, ethnicity, nationality or citizenship
• Disability
• Age
• Political opinion
• Employment status (including receiving a government benefit)
  * See also, Proposal 6 for trans inclusion

Despite the concrete way the proposal is worded in this section of the document, the government is seeking feedback on which groups from the above should be included under hate speech laws, noting on page four it "may include some or all of the other grounds in the Human Rights Act".

While Ardern initially told Newshub that political opinion would not be covered by hate speech and later in Parliament said Cabinet had decided to exclude political opinion from the proposals, the discussion document does not safeguard political opinion specifically.

When questioned in Parliament, Ardern would not rule out political opinion falling under these laws, saying it would depend on consultation with the public.

Safe to say it's an ongoing discussion. Continue reading

• Russell Palmer is a Digital Political Journalist with RNZ

The Prime Minister, who had just unveiled a memorial plaque at Christchurch's Al Noor mosque, added that she couldn't understand why there would be resistance from other political parties. "I don't see why there should be, and so that's probably a question for every political party, but that's certainly our view."

After a firestorm erupted last week with the announcement of a new hate speech offence to be included in the Crimes Act that carries a maximum penalty of three years' jail and a $50,000 fine, her display of confidence last September seems not so much naive as completely deluded.

The fiery reaction was entirely predictable for anyone who understands New Zealanders' passive-aggressive relationship with authority. While most will tolerate stringent restrictions on their freedom in times of emergency — such as during war or at the height of a pandemic — a marked hostility to being told what we can say or how to behave lurks not far beneath. The furious opposition to Helen Clark's anti-smacking law in 2007 should have given Ardern at least a tiny clue as to how her hate-speech proposals might be received.

Firm opposition to the proposed changes — which would expand the list of protected groups to include not only religion but possibly also sexuality, gender, age, disability and employment status — has come from across the political spectrum, ranging from John Minto on the left to Richard Prebble and Family First on the right and numerous other critics in between.

It would have helped immensely, of course, if both Ardern and her Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, had been able to answer questions put to them by television journalists about the scope and implications of the law changes but both politicians — faced with perfectly reasonable queries about real-life situations — failed miserably.

Ardern was adamant initially that political opinion would not be added as a protected category but later admitted it could be.

The fact neither politician had taken the time to inform themselves fully about changes that have been under discussion for several years represents an extraordinary dereliction of duty — as well as being deeply insulting to voters who are concerned about having fundamental freedoms curtailed.

Ardern has realised she is in trouble. As Act leader David Seymour put it, she is "twisting and turning" on hate speech so much "she could almost qualify to represent New Zealand in gymnastics" in her attempts to get safely out of harm's way.

Her first line of defence is the classic Pontius Pilate manoeuvre of shifting responsibility away from herself. If she isn't identified as the driving force in the push for a law change, it will seem much less like a personal failure if the intense public reaction forces a backdown.

Interviewed last week, she said: "The reason we're having this debate is because the Royal Commission of Inquiry [into the mosque attacks] said to the New Zealand government, ‘You need to include religion.'"

It is a sentiment she has repeated in Parliament but the Royal Commission's report was released publicly on December 8 last year while new hate speech laws were promised within weeks of the mosque attacks in 2019.

Ardern also campaigned on extending legal protections for groups that experience hate speech before last year's election in October.

As well as trying to shift responsibility to the Royal Commission, Ardern appears to be looking to guarantee a way out for herself by declaring that such a law change requires bipartisan support.

Speaking to RNZ, she managed to roll together her principal lines of defence in a single — albeit convoluted — sentence: "So I would reach out to those across all sides of the House and say, ‘Look, given we have been called on to do this, I'd be very interested in what their view is and what they would see as being a way to make sure that we are bringing in those who were at the most extreme end of an experience.'"

In that interview, she acknowledged bipartisan support was needed to ensure any legislation of this kind was going to endure. And in answering Judith Collins in the House, she reinforced that view by saying: "Ultimately, I want these provisions to last as long as the last [hate speech] provisions, which are broadly similar and were introduced 50 years ago."

Yet Ardern knows already — and has for some time — that National and Act are implacably opposed. Last week, David Seymour described the moves as "cancel culture on steroids"; in April, he began a series of free speech meetings the length of the country to oppose any expansion of existing restrictions; in his Address in Reply last November he pledged to gather signatures for a citizens' initiated referendum to overturn any law that mandated new restrictions on free speech.

Last September, after Ardern's visit to the Al Noor mosque, Collins was emphatic she wouldn't support any further loss of freedom of speech. "I'm very clear that our human rights legislation already deals with what needs to be dealt with."

She also promised last week that National would repeal any such law if a government she led came to power, and described the debate as "a total cluster, frankly, and the government needs to stop this now and back away".

Her justice spokesman, Simon Bridges, slated the proposals as "Orwellian".

So, if Ardern knows there is absolutely no chance of bipartisan support across Parliament's divide, why is she continuing to run this particular line? The only plausible explanation for a Prime Minister holding an outright majority is that she is looking to avoid humiliation over a backdown by blaming the lack of support by the Opposition.

In what looks like another move to ease her path away from enacting hate-speech legislation, Ardern is also emphasising that the proposals are a "discussion document". Presumably this is an attempt to make the proposed law change look more tentative than many suspect was intended before the extent and intensity of opposition were revealed.

If Ardern had wanted a thorough discussion of the proposals with a genuine intention to listen and respond, she would have made sure that the window for the public's input was much wider than the six weeks allowed.

Giving the public only until August 6 to make submissions on the changes came as a surprise to Canterbury University law dean Ursula Cheer. As she told RNZ: "I would have thought for a very complex consultation and proposed changes to a law like this, it would be a bit longer. I would have thought to the end of August at least."

The fact that the opportunity for public comment is so short — and indeed that the public has been kept in the dark for so long — appears to be no accident. The Ministry of Justice has obviously not been as sanguine about the popularity of a law change as Ardern professed to be when campaigning.

The ministry has been quietly consulting "affected groups" — including the Muslim community — for some time, in a process driven behind the scenes by the Human Rights Commission, which has long been in favour of more restrictions on speech.

As the Ministry of Justice put it: "In 2019, the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission met with groups that are most likely to be targeted by hate speech to better understand their experiences and views." Of course, they are the very groups most likely to be firmly in favour of a law change.

In March 2020, the Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite said that hate speech was a "tricky thing" to navigate. One of the ministry's aims was to "have a conversation about this and avoid protests."

Kibblewhite was reported as saying that the Human Rights Commission had led some of the work around a law change alongside the ministry as it wanted the conversation to happen away from the political fray — given that a proposed law change could easily be derailed with so many strongly held views.

The kind of strongly held views, in fact, that have erupted into public view this week and which look as if they might derail the Prime Minister's cherished plans after all.

• Graham Adams is a journalist, columnist and reviewer who has written for many of the country's media outlets including Metro, North & South, Noted, The Spinoff and Newsroom.
• First published on Democracy Project. Republished with permission.

"We're always happy to see those arrows going in the right direction and I think the government is to be commended for what they had accomplished up to that point," Smith says.

"But those numbers no longer reflect the situation on the ground - the economic fallout from Covid hit New Zealand's low-income families incredibly hard and we've seen the level of need in our communities skyrocket. We went from getting 10-15 calls a week to 20-30 a day."

"Rising living costs, particularly rents, have combined with job instability to create really difficult situations for a lot of families. Stats NZ's data shows that inflation has been three-times higher for beneficiaries and where there has been wage growth it hasn't been evenly shared with lower income groups."

This is also the second year Stats NZ has produced child poverty statistics for different ethnic groups, making it possible to see how poverty rates for different groups have changed over time.

"The decision to track stats by ethnic group has produced some really confronting results. The degree to which child poverty disproportionately affects Maori and Pacific Island families has made for sobering reading, and Covid has only added fuel to the fire."

In the year ended June 2020, 19 percent of Maori children and 25.4 percent of Pacific children lived in households that reported going without six or more of the 17 basic needs. These rates compared with 11 percent for all New Zealand children.

"Increased government support for low-income families is desperately needed if we're going to confront the growing inequality in our society. That much is clear, but doing so is actually a position with a lot of public support," Smith said.

A recent poll commissioned by a super-group of NGOs (including Monte Cecilia) showed seven out of ten (69%) of New Zealanders agree ‘the Government should increase income support for those on low incomes and not in paid work'.

"Covid has caused a lot of damage across the world but it also showed New Zealanders that we're capable of incredible things when we work together.

"This problem is solvable and the public is overwhelmingly behind the government taking bold action to do so," Smith says.

Source

• Monte-Cecilia Housing Trust

And it found none the 42 key recommendations made by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group early last year have been achieved almost two years later.

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) said "urgent systemic transformation" was needed for the Government to fulfil its promise of welfare overhaul and urged it to do more than "incremental tweaks".

The group today released an audit of how the recommendations made by the advisory group in February 2019 had been implemented and found it had delivered "remarkably little".

"Children cannot wait for more resources, as their minds, emotions, bodies are constantly developing and are often permanently adversely affected by toxic stress and lack of essentials," the report said.

"Our inadequate and ineffective welfare system continues to entrench poverty for children.

"The stress for these children and families not only has immediate adverse impacts for their wellbeing but has lasting effects on their lives and society; downstream costs in areas of health, education and justice alone are huge."

The stocktake found four of the 126 detailed recommendations had been fully achieved, seven of the 42 key recommendations had been adopted with a further 12 "minimally" implemented.

And there was no evidence of any implementation at all for more than half (23).

The 11-person panel of academics, social advocates, economists and business leaders was appointed in 2018 and tasked with conducting a wide-ranging review of the welfare system.

After the advisory group recommended an extra $5.2 billion a year for social welfare, with an immediate increase in main benefits ranging from 17 to 47 per cent. At the time Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni said it could take upwards of 10 years to achieve and embed.

But the report's authors, Innes Asher, who served on the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and Caitlin Neuwelt-Kearns, said a 10-year timeframe for welfare reform was "unreasonable and inappropriate" given the scale of urgent need.

And there appeared to be "little urgency" in the last government's approach, they said.

"There is an immediate severe need, and children cannot wait."

CPAG was among the 53 organisations which penned an open letter to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern urging her to raise benefits by Christmas but she ruled it out. Continue reading

CPAG's criticism of the Government's response comes after more than 60 charities urged them to increase welfare payments in the lead-up to Christmas, which Ardern ruled out.

Progress on welfare reform is being made, she says.

CPAG's wrote its critique of the Government's performance after examining the Government's response to the 42 recommendations the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) made in 2019.

"The Government says it wants welfare reform to enable people to live in dignity with adequate incomes, and it asked WEAG for a plan to achieve this," says stocktake co-author Innes Asher, who served on the WEAG.

Asher says seven of the WEAG's key recommendations have been "partially" implemented.

A further 12 "minimally" implemented. There is no evidence that over half the key recommendations have been implemented.

"Given WEAG found that people receiving benefits are living 'desperate lives' on 'seriously inadequate incomes', the progress on implementation appears unjustifiably slow," co-author Caitlin Neuwelt-Kearns says.

Ardern says she disagrees with "some parts" of CPAGs report.

"For instance, their view is that we've made no progress on the issue of income when it comes to people on Government support. We've always been very open that that is something that was going to take time and I disagree with the criticism of no progress.

"We've had both the [$5 billion] Families Package, we've had the general benefits increase, we've had the winter energy payment [which was doubled this year to $40 per week for singles and $63 for couples and those with dependent children], we ... have indexed benefits to wage increases, which was actually one of the recommendations of the WEAF."

Also included in the package were $60 weekly BestStart payments for parents of newborns until they turn 1-year-old, as well as tax credits for families with dependent children based on income thresholds.

After modelling the Families Package to see how it impacted on the poorest children, CPAG found it wasn't enough to release children and their families from poverty.

CPAGs report accuses Ardern of overstating the Government's progress on welfare reform.

It notes during the TVNZ Leaders Debate in September, Ardern said: "We've implemented 22 of the recommendations so far and we have seen that the changes that we've made have already made a big difference."

CPAG says they haven't all been implemented - instead, they're being worked on.

This was confirmed by Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni, who said work is "currently underway" to address around 22 of WAG's recommendations.

"Hyperbolic claims ... do a disservice to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who must continue to make ends meet with inadequate support," CPAG's report says.

Ardern responded saying the Government's welfare improvements include spending over $13 billion on the wage subsidy scheme in response to COVID-19 and removing some sanctions from benefits.

Source

• Newshub
• Image: Newstalk ZB

We're all familiar with the "be kind" mantra, but I question its ability to achieve… well, anything.

Ardern asked landlords to chill with raising their rent when the kind thing to do would be to introduce rent controls.

Work and Income staff were asked to have more compassion when dealing with people when the kind thing to do would be to provide livable incomes for all.

What's happening on the ground in our communities is the opposite of "being kind" and we're over it.

People receiving benefits can't eat kindness.

They can't pay their overpriced rent and power bills with it.

They can't buy food with it or take their babies out to the movies, or have a nice family meal out during the school holidays with it.

"Be kind" means nothing to the families Auckland Action Against Poverty (AAAP) serve in our communities.

It means nothing when you fail to uphold the principles and values of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It means nothing without meaningful action and practices behind it.

Work and Income must have missed the "be kind" memo because people are still being declined basic assistance and care.

The winter energy payment is running out in October.

Those in emergency housing will be charged 25% of their entire income.

Supposedly 30,000 more people are going to have more money in their pockets because they will be allowed to work a whole eight hours at minimum wage before their benefits are affected.

Implementing initiatives that only affect tens of thousands of people isn't enough when hundreds of thousands of people live below the poverty line here.

The government is choosing to stay on the same status quo track its been on for generations.

Many of us are familiar with how Metiria Turei was run out of parliament before the 2017 election, simply because she shared her truth about what she had to do in order to survive as a young single mother.

Our incredible volunteers, many of whom are receiving benefits, have been harassed online for sharing the truth about their own lives. AAAP - alongside other organisations like Child Poverty Action Group, KidsCan, Action Station, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, unions, the Human Rights Commission, and the Children's Commission - have been demanding the government transform our welfare system and still not enough is being done.

We have seen the government respond to gun laws and Covid-19 with swift decision making.

It can no longer say it has not heard us or that it is unaware of the extreme levels of poverty that exist in Aotearoa.

It's so much deeper than having enough money to thrive. Continue reading

• Brooke Stanley Pao is the incoming co-ordinator for Auckland Action Against Poverty,

Amid the growing need for food banks and the accusation that Ardern, has done nothing to address the issue of child poverty, the Prime Minister told One News that she needs more than one term to reduce poverty.

Ardern told One News "not all" of her Government's policies "have worked as well as we intended."

"It does take time, though, to turn around long-term problems, so that's why we do food banks in the meantime."

However, Child Poverty Action Group spokesperson Janet McAllister told Q+A's Jack Tame said that the Ardern government had "over-promised and under-delivered."

McAllister said the Government had failed to reach their goal for lifting Kiwi children out of poverty.

Ardern who says she came to Parliament to address child poverty, says she wants another three years in order to make progress.

"When we came into government, of all of the (child poverty) measures we use - and we use about nine - seven of them were getting worse. In the short time we've had, we've improved those so that seven are now better," Ardern claimed during the first leaders' debate.

She said that one of the first things her government did was to set a goal to end child poverty.

However, various groups are saying that actions speak louder than words and setting a target is merely aspirational and it is delivery that counts.

During the debate, National leader, Judith Collins said the Government had done nothing to address the issue of child poverty and media organisation AAP FactCheck also labelled Ardern's claims to be misleading.

"While recent figures show seven child poverty measures have slightly improved, the changes were not statistically significant and only partially cover the first year of the Labour Coalition Government," AAP FactCheck said.

Using data from Stats NZ, AAP says child poverty figures for the year ending during the previous government, June 2017, show six measures improved on the previous year and three measures worsened.

"The figures for the year ending June 2018 - encompassing the period the Labour coalition came to government - show seven measures were getting worse compared with the previous year," reports AAP FactCheck.

They described the slight improvement in seven child poverty measures during the Ardern leadership as "not statistically significant."

A spokesperson for Ardern said AAP FactCheck "is wrong", however the Socialist Equality Group concur with AAP.

"The reality is that the latest data showed only small changes to child poverty levels, within the margin of error."

"The number of children living in households below the poverty line of 50 percent of the average household income (after housing costs are deducted) dropped just 2 percent from 253,800 in 2018 to 235,400 in mid-2019."

The group says that if more up-to-date figures were available the results would be worse and is predicting that as a result of COVID-19, they expect 70,000 more children will plunge into poverty.

"The median income has fallen by 7.6 percent in the past year. The number of people receiving an unemployment benefit soared by 53 percent, or 77,000 people, from March 21 to the end of August. The Ministry of Social Development says 16 percent of people could be receiving some form of benefit by January," the groups goes on to state.

National Party spokesperson for social development Louise Upston criticised the Government's inability to maintain their promise of lifting 100,000 children out of poverty by this year, as set out in their 2017 policy announcement.

Sources

• One News
• Newshub
• One News
• Newshub
• One News
• AAP FactCheck
• Socialist Equality Group

She promised to include religion under legislation that deals with hate speech and discrimination.

"In a modern New Zealand, everyone would agree no one should be discriminated for their religion.

"It makes sense that we add this to the suite of other things, we say it is just not OK to discriminate people over", she said.

Adern's promise came yesterday during a visit to Al Noor mosque to unveil a memorial plaque in memory of the March 15 attacks and was responding to the push for change by the Imam Gamal Fouda.

The policy announcement was not planned, but a response to Fouda's view that outlawing hate speech would prevent another attack like the one at Al Noor mosque.

"Freedom of speech becomes hate speech. Hate turns into hate crime as we have seen at the 15th of March", Fouda said, taking the opportunity to push for change.

"I'd like to see a new law in New Zealand and I think New Zealand has seen a lot and we went through a lot. The blood of those people shouldn't be forgotten," he said.

A clampdown on hate speech will not go ahead under National and ACT.

"I believe ultimately in freedom of speech with certain limitations that we've all accepted," said National leader Judith Collins.

"The promise of tougher hate speech laws shows the danger of a left-wing government to our fundamental rights and freedoms", said ACT leader David Seymour.

"Hate speech laws are divisive and dangerous, turning the debate into a popularity contest where the majority can silence unpopular views using the power of the state", he said.

New Conservative leader Leighton Baker warns that the first freedom society loses is when a society loses its freedom of speech.

"The only real definition of hate speech is inciting someone to commit an act of violence, and we have laws to protect against this now.

"We must be able to discuss ideas in a free and democratic society", Baker said.

Currently, there is no specific hate speech law in New Zealand.

Hate speech is covered by The Human Rights Act on the grounds of colour, race or ethnicity - not religion.

Ardern confirmed Labour intends not stopping just with religion and promises to include sexual orientation, age or disability.

Sources

• TVNZ
• Newshub
• Scoop

The Prime Minister's claim that people of the Pacific are "family" to New Zealanders is a remarkably powerful one.

This is not only because family is the most important priority in collectivist Pacific cultures, but also because in making this claim, Jacinda Ardern herself is describing the standard that New Zealand's foreign policy in the Pacific should meet.

And now with weeks to go until the election, when it looks like our political parties are once again forgetting about pressing issues in the Pacific, New Zealand's actions (or moreover inactions) in the Pacific need to be judged against this "family" standard now more than ever.

Climate change

To start with, it must be said that even in April 2018, it was clear that the Government did not see Pacific peoples as "family" when it came to climate change.

This was evident with the decision of the New Zealand courts to deport a Pacific man, Ioane Teitiota, facing displacement due to climate change in 2015.

The courts insisted Teitiota and his family could return to lives of dignity in Kiribati, despite compelling expert evidence and heart-breaking testimonies from the family making it clear their particular homes were uninhabitable.

This decision, backed up by the United Nation's Human Rights Committee in January, means that New Zealand does not offer protection to Pacific peoples facing displacement due to climate change.

But us Pacific peoples have come to learn that we are only seen as "family" by the government and wider society when we win rugby tournaments, or when we receive praise and acclaim on the international stage, or when politicians are seeking clout and political power here or overseas.

Indeed, many Pacific peoples in Kiribati and other low lying Pacific nations wish to live in their homelands for as long as possible.

This explains why many Pacific peoples and governments have rejected mass relocation schemes that have put forward as quick-fix alternatives to climate change adaptation and mitigation.

However, this complete lack of protection in New Zealand means that the small but rising number of individuals and families already being displaced are being forced to endure living conditions that no New Zealand judge would ever deem acceptable for themselves and their families.

Therefore, as leading climate change law experts have urged, the Government must find ways to build on existing immigration frameworks to protect Pacific families like the Teitiota's.

It must do this alongside providing stronger support for adaptation measures in the Pacific and making more meaningful strides to reduce carbon emissions (which it is still failing to do despite its obligations under the Paris Agreement).

West Papua

Another reason why Ardern's "family" claim should be treated with deep suspicion is the consistent refusal to take action against abuses and murders of indigenous peoples in West Papua by the Indonesian government.

In summarising the current situation in West Papua, Dr Mark Busse and Sophie Faber note an estimated 100,000 West Papuans have been killed since 1969 in their ongoing struggle for self-determination and independence from Indonesia.

But, despite decades of evidence and graphic images showing the Indonesian government's abusive treatment of West Papuans, New Zealand has declined to comment on the situation.

In fact, in 2018, Prime Minister Ardern told Indonesian President Joko Widodo during his state visit that New Zealand supported Indonesian control of West Papua.

One of the most painful injustices of New Zealand's politics of disposability and racial capitalism comes from knowing that if white people from Australia, Europe, North America or anywhere in the world were facing displacement due to climate change or being routinely brutalised and murdered by armed forces - New Zealand would never remain silent because these white people would be seen and treated as "family".

In August 2019, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade issued a statement explaining that New Zealand "continues to support the position [on West Papua] taken by the Pacific Islands Forum" that took place that month.

This "position" looked to be a strong one by involving a call for the UN Human Rights Commissioner to go to West Papua within the next year. However, the New Zealand Government has still done nothing to push for this visit and remains silent on the ongoing atrocities.

Activist and author of See No Evil: New Zealand's Betrayal of the People of West Papua, Maire Leadbeater, notes this inaction is part of a long history of New Zealand's complicity, where officials have always been "aware of how badly indigenous Papuans were faring under the Indonesian regime..."

But, according to lawyer Cat McLennan, the New Zealand Government is actually very capable of taking action, as seen when they stood up against the Indonesian government to help the people of Timor-Leste gain independence in 2002.

The racism behind the inaction

All this inaction begs the question - why is the New Zealand Government doing nothing in the face of these major human rights crises in the Pacific? In other words, why is it failing to help "family" clearly in need of assistance? Continue reading

About one in six children (16% or 183,000) live below a before-housing-cost relative poverty measure, but that figure jumps to almost one in four (23% or 254,000) once housing costs are accounted for.

And 13% (148,000) are living in households that experience material hardship - 6% in severe hardship.

These children don't have such basic things as two good pairs of shoes. Their families regularly have to cut back on fresh fruit and veggies, put up with feeling cold and postpone visits to the doctor.

The data show that the government will need to do much more to reach its targets for reducing childhood poverty.

Measuring child poverty

New Zealand introduced the Child Poverty Reduction Act at the end of last year. It was a bold move reflecting the Ardern government's commitment to do something about New Zealand's dismal child poverty statistics. Earlier this month, Stats NZ released the first set of baseline statistics required under the act.

Previous governments, both National and Labour, may have talked about child poverty but shied away from binding targets. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has also made herself minister for child poverty reduction, has put through clear legislation, eventually winning cross-party support for it.

The act does two main things. First, it requires the government statistician to report annually on a set of four "primary" and six "supplementary" measures of child poverty. (One primary measure, poverty persistence, does not come into force until 2025.)

Second, it requires governments to set three-year and ten-year targets for each of the primary measures and to report on progress to parliament. Any failures to meet targets must be explained.

The three primary measures are:

1. Relative poverty, before housing costs: the proportion of children living in households whose equivalised disposable income before housing costs is less than 50% of the median. This measure compares a household's income for the previous 12 months to the current median for all households. The median will move from year to year due to inflation and economic changes. A low-income household will improve its situation if its income moves by more than the median.
2. Constant value poverty after housing costs: the proportion of children living in households whose equivalised disposable income after housing costs is less than 50% of the base-year median. This measure gives an indication of the spending power households have after paying either rent or mortgage repayments, rates and insurance.
3. Material hardship: the proportion of children living in households that are experiencing material hardship, defined as having a score of six or more on the DEP-17 deprivation index.

The government's targets

Well before the act was finalised, the prime minister had announced the government's ten-year targets: 5% on the first measure, 10% on the second and 7% on the third.

These are ambitious targets, which would put New Zealand near the top of the OECD rankings. That said, they still imply a significant number of children in poverty.

During the evolution of the legislation, the government also decided to bring forward the starting year for measurement of the targets to 2018-19, therefore making the baseline year 2017-18. This has the advantage of ensuring the impact of its Families Package contributes to achieving the targets, but the disadvantage that targets had to be set before the official Stats NZ baseline measures were available.

The three-year targets were therefore expressed in percentage-point decreases, rather than in absolute terms (reductions of 6, 4 and 3 percentage points respectively).

Ironically, the worse-than-expected figures make the government's short-term targets slightly easier to reach. Taking six percentage points off a larger number is easier to achieve than if the baseline had turned out lower than expected. Nonetheless, it must still lift 72,000 children over the first line, 42,000 over the after-housing-cost measure, and 37,000 out of the material hardship category.

How to reduce childhood poverty

The Families Package, announced before the 2017 election, will go part of the way. Its increases in the Working for Families tax credits and, to a lesser extent, the changes to the Accommodation Supplement will reduce child poverty, especially against the first before-housing-cost measure. Treasury has estimated that the Families Package will reduce the number of children below this measure by 64,000 by 2021.

The impact on the after-housing-cost measure is likely to be smaller because of rising rental costs, which grew by an average of 5.2% during 2018. The reduction in the number of children living under material hardship is also likely to be less substantial.

Other changes might have some effect. The government is committed to increasing the statutory minimum wage to $20 per hour by 2021. It was $15.75 for most of the baseline year, rising to $16.50 on April 1 2018. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment analysis, however, suggests minimum wage increases will have a "relatively limited impact" on poverty among households with children because most poor kids are not living in households with a minimum-wage earner.

Housing initiatives, especially more state housing, will help eventually but will take too long to have any impact on the three-year poverty targets. The 2018 budget extensions to free and low-cost doctors' visits for children and the broadening of access to the Community Services Card can be expected to help families experiencing material hardship, as will other changes such as the banning of tenancy letting fees. But these can only be expected to have marginal impacts.

Substantial further initiatives will be needed over the next two years. The size of the task is illustrated here.

The after-housing-costs measure must come down the most but has been heading in the right direction following the global financial crisis. This reflects the fact that it is adjusted only for price inflation and the incomes of some poor households have been rising more quickly than prices. The material hardship measure has also been trending down, probably for similar reasons.

The most challenging target will be the relative poverty measure. Recent good economic growth and a strong labour market have done nothing to reduce this measure. Indeed, it has been more or less constant for over a decade.

Cutting poverty on this measure requires bringing poor households nearer to the median, reducing inequality between the poor and those in the middle. A rising tide that lifts all boats equally will do nothing to reduce relative poverty.

The government will also need to ensure its policies help the poorest of the poor. Reaching the three primary targets but not cutting the numbers below the lowest poverty line would be a hollow achievement. Most of these children are in families reliant on benefit incomes. Part of any successful strategy to reduce child poverty must involve increasing the level of assistance to families on benefits.

• Michael Fletcher - Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington.

Under the current law, up to 10 people are permitted to make up the church service.

With such a limitation, it became abundantly clear that the parishes would exclude people.

Eleanor, representing the Foxton and Shannon communities was invited to be one of ten people participating in the Cathedral as the parishes live-streamed Sunday Mass.

On Friday she wrote.

Dear Friends,
I went to Bunnings this afternoon.

There were no queues, people were walking freely in and out of the store, shopping at close proximity to one another and then it dawned on me what Jacinda was doing.

It is not only unpractical but cruel, and now we are presenting this same model to our parishioners.

Imagine a parish of 200 people where only ten can enter the church at a time with restrictions, which means that parishioners must now scramble to get into their own church.

When the Mass was in the presbytery it was beautiful because it looked like a family saying Mass together but if we are going to have a Mass in the Cathedral or church with only a selected few and all the other parishioners excluded, Jacinda would succeed in humiliating us as a worshipping community.

Thank you for asking me to come, but in light of what I experienced today, I have to decline.

God bless us all
Eleanor

Mass from the Cathedral with just ten people was cancelled however continued as it was during lockdown, live-streamed from the confines of the Cathedral Presbytery.

• The Cathedral, Palmerston North, Our Lady of Lourdes and Foxton parishes

Right to Life asks that if the images exposing the bodies of the brutally murdered victims of abortion are so horrible that they cannot stand to look at them, why do they tolerate and facilitate their murder?

Prime Minister, the only voice aborted babies have is their broken and bloodied bodies.

Their broken and bloodied bodies is the only way they can speak to you.

Adern does not listen

On the day of the second reading of the anti-women and anti-life Abortion Legislation Bill, members of the pro-life movement gathered peacefully outside Parliament.

Several members held heart-rendering graphic pictures of aborted babies.

The Prime Minister, who has enthusiastically sponsored her Labour-led government bill, said she was personally against the use of such images.

"I just think that's not a way to share the legitimate views that other people will have."

"People will have their own views and they should be able to freely express them.

"But people should also be mindful that those who have gone through some of these experiences, that will weigh heavy for many."

Right to Life sympathises with the Prime Minister, it is very disturbing to see pictures of the dismembered and bloodied bodies of children who have been violently killed.

Right to Life believes that if we are going to engage in a respectful and informed debate about abortion it is important to consider the objective of abortion.

Every abortion results in a violently killed child.

How can we debate your Bill when you refuse to acknowledge that abortion kills an innocent human being?

Little objection

Justice Minister Andrew Little also objected to the use of such images.

"New Zealanders on average have a low level of tolerance for that sort of extremism. If these people want to go around upsetting the rest of New Zealand, that's their call."

Minister, why is it extreme to graphically depict the results of your ill-conceived abortion Bill?

Is it your Bill that is extreme?

Is it not you and your extreme abortion Bill that is upsetting the rest of New Zealand?

Vulnerable not protected

Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, why do you want to kill unborn children?

Why are you not protecting society's most vulnerable?

From the moment of conception we are human beings endowed with an inalienable right to life.

Children come to bless our nation, all they ask is to love and be loved

Prime Minister, Minister of Justice you choose not to hear the silent scream of the unborn child as the abortionist forces their way into their home, intent on violently killing a living child.

You might not like to listen, but the graphic pictures of the bloodied and dismembered bodies speak to you.

• Ken Orr is a spokesperson for Right to Life.

A friend made that prediction as we drove through South Auckland, having seen thousands of people rally at this festival-like protest for indigenous rights.

Like the Springbok Tour of 1981, or Vietnam War protests the decade before, many believe this event will define the current decade.

At Ihumatao, musician Stan Walker declared this was the "revolution of our generation".

Perhaps only climate change has garnered the sort of momentum which is now fuelling protests to "save Ihumatao".

What seemed like a minor dispute is national news, drawing thousands of people to a slice of land Auckland Council and the government have tried to ignore.

But the questions this little slice of New Zealand raise will have an impact on us all.

It's not about a new subdivision, or who owns what, it's about justice and botched government process.

The many thousands of Kiwis who have made their way to Ihumatao are pulling the curtain off the Government's failed Treaty Claims Settlement process, and they've caught Jacinda Ardern off guard.

Now, the leader glorified as a progressive force for change appears to be scrambling for some sort of resolution.

She'll find that hard to achieve.

Instead of front-footing this major issue, the prime minister has faced stinging accusations of absenteeism.

Movement leader Pania Newton directly challenged Ardern for not meeting with the Save Our Unique Landscape activists. She also promised there would be no de-escalation.

One reason Ardern hasn't met with the activists is because she spent the weekend in Tokelau.

Suddenly, her history-making Pacific island trip faced criticism from all sides of the House, with Simon Bridges calling her a "part-time prime minister".

Had Ardern joined her MPs Willie Jackson and Peeni Henare at Ihumatao, she would have faced an even more serious dilemma than name calling. What will she do about it?

Make no mistake about why Henare travelled to Mangere for the protest. He's there begging to keep his job.

This is his electorate.

This is an issue which should have been front and centre in his mind.

In 2016, Labour published a statement headlined: "Ihumatao needs action not sympathy".

The party's had three years to come up with a solution, and yet in 2019 all Ardern has done is temporarily halt the construction work after saying: "We have heard the strong voice of young people, rangatahi".

To me, that sounds like sympathy rather than action. Continue reading

• Glenn McConnell is a journalist and student.
• Image: Stuff

Led by Jacinda Ardern, they include the anti-feminist movement, the Family Planning Association, the Green Party, the radical left of the Labour Party,

All are strident advocates for the killing of our vulnerable, innocent and defenceless unborn.

We can not state more clearly that Jacinda Ardern is the prime driver for the decriminalisation of abortion in New Zealand.

The Prime Minister does not recognise the humanity of the unborn child, nor its right to life.

It is our view that:

• Ardern believes that the child is the property of the mother.
• She believes that the killing of an unborn child by another human is a human right.
• That it is her wish abortion be taken out of the Crimes Act and treated as a health issue.
• She believes the killing of an unborn child by another human is a "reproductive choice for women".

Responding to an Official Information Act request on 16 March, Justice Minister, Andrew Little, confirmed that the government supported the born alive law contained in Section 159 of the Crimes Act 1961.

The born alive law states that "for the purposes of the Crimes Act", an unborn child does not become a human being until it is born.

However, it was never the intention of Parliament to deny the humanity of the unborn child. This whole section is a legal fiction intended to differentiate between homicide and the killing of an unborn child.

A poll conducted by AC Nielsen in 2004 on behalf of Right to Life found considerable support for recognising the humanity of the unborn child.

The poll of 1000 persons found that,

• 36% believed that the unborn child became a human being at conception,
• 14% at the time of implantation and
• 28 % at a point between implantation and birth.

These statistics show a total of 78% who believed that the unborn child was a human being before birth.

Further, in April 2019, a poll of a 1,000 persons found 47% believed that the human rights of the unborn child should be legally protected from about six weeks once a heartbeat can be detected.

Curia Market Research conducted the poll in April 2019 on behalf of Family First.

Instead then, of following its own agenda, why does the Labour-led government not amend the law to reflect public opinion?

Right to life requests that the Labour-led government conduct a binding referendum.

The question to be asked: "Do you recognise the unborn child from implantation as being a human being endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being an inalienable right to life?"

It is disappointing that our government has $2.2 million to conduct a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis, an issue that is a threat to the lives and health of New Zealanders.

It is shameful that the government gives priority to legalising the smoking of cannabis but has no interest in promoting the rights of our most vulnerable.

New Zealand cannot be a just society until the New Zealand Bill of Rights protects the human rights of every New Zealander from conception to natural death.

We find it astounding on the 19 January 2018 Jacinda Ardern was jubilant in announcing that "she was pregnant with her first child".

She has felt her baby kick; she has heard its heartbeat and watched in awe at scans showing the wondrous miracle of creation developing in her womb, indeed a beautiful baby and a unique and unrepeatable miracle of nature endowed with a right to life.

How then can she be in denial about the humanity of the unborn child and its right to life?

• Ken Orr is a spokesman for Right to Life
• Image: Supplied

Farid Ahmed, who lost his wife in the shootings, was among 27 survivors of religious persecution from all over the world who met president Trump last Wednesday.

He thanked the president for the leadership and support he had shown "by standing up for humanity, standing up for religious groups and their rights."

"Thank you for supporting us during the 15 March tragedy in Christchurch," he said.

"God bless you and God bless the United States."

Prime minister not surprised

New Zealand's prime minister, Jacinda Ardern said Ahmed's warm comments to the US president did not surprise her.

"I don't think I have ever heard or indeed met an individual who has had so little reason to be forgiving and yet is so incredibly forgiving," she said.

"He is a man full of love and compassion, and he exudes that in every interaction he has.

It doesn't surprise me at all he's doing that abroad and continuing to be a person that just promotes love and humanity."

During the Christchurch National Remembrance Service on March 29, Ahmed thanked "New Zealanders for coming together to show the world that New Zealand is a peaceful country".

"I have chosen peace, I have chosen love, and I have forgiven," he said.

Source

• christianpost.com
• tvnz.co.nz
• Image: White House