I say this because no boat people have ever made it to New Zealand. The government is saying it’s a real possibility because a freighter made it to Canada two years ago and of course boats have made it to Australia. Well those facts are like saying there are wars somewhere in the world so we should start military drills in school, to prepare for invasion. It’s a very strange thing.

But reasons and improbability aside the content of the proposed legislation is worrying and will compromise our history as a good global citizen as it contravenes the Refugee Convention, basic concepts of fairness and will make it more difficult for refugees to settle effectively.   

Detention has to be for legitimate cause, with evidence of criminality, health risk, genuine individual security risk. This is in the Refugee Convention.

Six months legal review of detention is much too long – the existing 28 days is bad enough. Refugees are some of the most vulnerable people in the world and deserve our compassion and should certainly not be subjected to such harsh treatment.

Group detention is contrary to fundamental concepts of law and fairness. If it’s illegal to give a class detention for the behaviour of one student, which it is, then how much worse is group detention for up to six months? To detain a whole group on an  Group detention has failed in Aussie.

Not allowing immediate family in quickly – waiting for 3 Years – is unjust and will only enhance existing trauma and difficulties of resettling. Not allowing refugees to apply to bring extended family to New Zealand denies cultural rights in many cases. The Law must be flexible at least.

Review of refugee status after three years is heartless and illegal in terms of Refugee Convention. Refugees need certainty as they settle and bring up children – not fear they might be tossed out after three years.

The Government says it’s committed to continuing our quota of 750 refugees per annum. That would be a really good start, especially as we haven’t reached that quota in recent times and have never exceeded it. 

 Jan Logie MP

Three years on from a major review which involved all relevant government departments and leaders in the field we need action not more investigation.

So in honour of Rape Awareness Week, May1-7, I would like to offer 7 suggestions to the Government primarily sourced from the 2009 Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence:

1)    Regularly and publically report on your progress towards implementing the recommendations of the 2009 Taskforce for Action on Sexual Violence (TASV).

2)    Immediately increase funding to specialist sexual abuse services.

3)    Redo the stocktake of government spending on specialist sexual abuse services so that it is understandable i.e isn’t so broad as to include benefit payments that might be being received by perpetrators and victims/survivors. The Minister of Social development promised a review of specialist services but her department delivered a P.R exercise.

4)    Commit to introduce legislation in line with the Law Commission’s recommendations relating to pre-trial and trial processes.

5)    In partnership with TOAH-NNEST, the umbrella organisation of specialist services, develop an implementation plan to ensure high quality crisis services are available throughout the country.

6)    Increase the availability, and enhance the capacity of Tangata Whenua and Tauiwi providers including specialist services for Pasifika, Asian, all ages and all genders.

7)    With TOAH-NNEST, evaluate and address the adequacy of funding for the provision of community treatment for offenders as well as early intervention and prevention services.

My name is Jan Logie and I am incredibly honoured to be the Green Party spokesperson for Pacific Island Affairs.

Tonight is the culmination of quite a lot of work by the Pasifika network. Thank you Pa’u and the whole network team, and province for making tonight happen.

It’s especially encouraging to see so many of you here because, apart from you all looking so good, I’m looking for my replacement. Don’t misinterpret me I love this role but I also believe strong Green Pasifika leadership would really help our party, our communities and the whole country.

I am spokesperson for 8 portfolios but have made Pacific Affairs one of my priorities because I believe Pacific communities can teach New Zealand a lot about climate change, community building, and more unfortunately about the impacts of inequality. I believe you can be an inspiration for the change this country needs.

I would like to speak a little tonight about change, through the metaphor of the Samoan tides and winds and I would like to thank my friend, here tonight, Mataia Ramona Tiatia for the inspiration and images and let you know that she holds absolutely no responsibility for my rather cheeky interpretation and use of the metaphors.

Taimasato represents the tide-smelly-dead-deep, petrified landmass, the vanquished tide, exposed to the elements.

As you know all too well, Pasifika peoples were brought  to new Zealand as workers in the 50s and 60s and then when the jobs dried the government of this country turned on the people who had helped build the strusture and wealth of this. This country has never come to terms with this history. Our successive governments have kept Pacific people in stagnant water barred from the fresh life giving waters. Tragically all too many Pacific peoples are still stagnating in poverty, worn down by multiple low paid jobs, and smelly, damp housing. Pacific children are still being forced to drink the polluted waters of inadequate education and health. Pacific peoples have been left exposed to the elements without protection of a government who cares.

The Taioalo tides can describe our whole political system – the familial relationships, wisdom of elders on surface while underneath the tensions and the pressures of the next generation stir things up. The under tow usually represents our youth, women, children and carers. While ethical responsibilities are still in the hands of politicians, we can make things look very smooth and wonderful but underneath you know there lies a rip tide. I believe our job as political leaders is to bring the riptide to the awareness of everyone, to harness that energy so it can bring movement and a fresh renewable resource. So far we haven’t had political leadership to do this.

Labour seem to be stuck in the La’i winds. A wind whose momentum is lost, force is diminished, that is beyond reach unable to be of use to others. Traditionally Labour has been the party for pacific people, bound to the experience and voice of workers. Labour stood up for Pacific families and people. But when the tides changed in the 80s Labour lost it’s way and have increasingly lost momentum. They seem unsure of what they stand for and are unable to connect to the riptide of dissatisfaction, the tumbling energy of the undertow that holds the potential to bring Pacific people out of the stagnant waters.

And National seems to be bringing the Si’uamouli back. The Si’uamouli wind is freezing cold, it’s felt as unprovoked and extreme, really feared by the elderly, it turns the fruit black and causes death. It breaks things. This for me is the symbol most appropriate for the attack on work conditions, the tax cuts for the wealthy while GST goes up, the cuts to health and welfare, the attacks we’re soon to see on our community organisations, the introduction of national standards that will label so many of our children as failures, the shifting of aid money in the Pacific to further NZ political and economic goals instead of meeting the needs of Pacific communities. The winds behind these policies may go unnoticed by those in nice warm offices or homes but they are chilling chilling winds that will do most harm to those kept in the stagnant waters poverty.

This brings us to the Greens which I suspect for many of you is probably represented best by Taifula  the state of tide that is hard to discern. Is this the high tide or low tide?  Are things getting better or are they getting worse.

While I think the tide is now just starting to roll back and I feel confident that we’ve got a long way to go before we reach our high tide I acknowledge that for many Pacific people leaving Labour is a big step and as the Greens have not been in power yet you may be unsure whether we will actually be the party to make the difference for you.

I believe if you look at our policy, and look at what we’ve done outside of Government you will get a sense of which way the tide is turning. To name just a few of our successes: Our $323 million home insulation scheme has made more than 100,000 Kiwi homes warmer, we’ve made the other political parties start talking about Climate change, we got a Disability Commissioner, we’ve put child poverty and inequality on the political agenda, and we got rid of youth rates.

Our policies, which are developed by our members, hold the economy, environment and people together. We do not believe in solutions that leave anyone in polluted waters, a vanquished tide. Rather than cut welfare we would create jobs that will be good for our environment. Rather than sell off state assets we would use the profits from our energy companies to invest in Green technology so we can all have cheaper and more sustainable power. Rather than introduce national standards in education we would invest in bi-lingual resources, smaller classes and teacher training. Rather than driving down work conditions we would raise the minimum wage and make it easier for workers to stand together. Rather than ignore Pasifika peoples we will welcome your energy and ideas.

Our track record, and policies are a good start for reading the tides, but mostly our ability to harness the energy of those riptides to bring people out of the Taimasato is dependent on you and me. It is all of our hopes, all of our voices, and all of our energy that will bring change. Together I believe we can become the Fa’asulu wind. The Unrelenting Wind, that urgent escape that goes straight to the heart of the matter. This is what will create the movement and energy we need to create a society where we can all participate and achieve.

Finally I would like to formally invite each and every one of you to participate in and join to the green Party and extend this invitation to your friends and family.  On behalf of the party and the existing Pacifica members I want you to know your membership and participation will be valued and truly appreciated. In the Green Party the policy is developed by the membership. There is a place for you here to help shape who we all are. I’m your temporary mouthpiece, albeit a one committed to change. For me the hope of our Party and our country is in some ways reliant on you taking ownership of this agenda and party.

Fafetaelava, malo aupito, meitaki ma’ata, thank you so much for coming tonight I hope to see lots more of you all.

Mayors from South Canterbury to Southland have been lobbying the Ministry to try and save a youth service reputed to be a potential blueprint for youth services nationwide.

The scheme covers the bottom half of the South Island, and contacts every school leaver in Otago and Southland.

The Work’n It Out programme may have to shed most of its clients or even close as part of a Government overhaul of youth services.

Work’n It Out deals with young people aged between 15 and 19 who are not in work or higher education – a wider age group than the proposed replacement. As part of the first stage of welfare reforms government is now focussing funding to services providing services to only 16 and 17 year olds.

Here we have a programme the community is saying is making a real difference to the lives of their youth and yet welfare reforms are going to mean it may not survive.

How do the youth of Southland and Otago feel about this?

It only takes a minute to sign a quick form submission or a longer form submission and you can take longer to express your heart with an in-depth submission. Submissions are due Friday 27 April.

Auckland Sexual Abuse HELP have put together a website that gives you the opportunity to get involved and explains why it’s so important that alternative trial processes for sexual violence cases are introduced.

Here’s some key information that I found on the site that really resonates:

The government asked the Law Commission to review making the court system fairer, more effective and more efficient.  To do it we need as many people as possible to let Hon Judith Collins know that they support the changes that are recommended by the NZ Law Commission in their report “Alternative Trial Processes”.

This is a once in a life time opportunity to make the Criminal Justice System (CJS) different. The CJS for sexual violence must change. This is an investment in the future of all those who are harmed by sexual violence. This could improve their chances of finding justice and reduce the risk of being re-victimised and re-traumatised through the CJS. It will also support holding offenders accountable and reducing the risk of re-offending.

If she (Judith Collins) knew me and what I’ve gone through being sexually abused as a child and then going through the current justice system, how could she not want change!!!!!!!!!!! I want to convince you that the change needs to happen. You have to look at this from the point of view of someone who’s actually been through it.

I wouldn’t recommend going through the current criminal justice system, you have to be superwoman. I feel like I need to grab every single person in this country and shake their head. You need to look at it like it’s your mother, your brother, your sister, people need to connect to this personally to understand the importance.

Nicki Tongs: Survivor of Childhood Sexual abuse and a court trial in September 2011 ending with a guilty verdict and still disillusioned

Many New Zealanders have been sexually assaulted/abused. Some report to the police and go onto court. Occasionally the offender pleads guilty which avoids a court trial. For the majority that do proceed to court, survivor/victims have to give evidence at a trial in front of 12 jury members, the judge, defence lawyer, crown prosecutor and a number of other court workers.

This has been one of the hardest things I’ve had to do in my life, especially in front of a group of strangers [jury] who I may bump into sometime in the future

Male survivor in court trial in April 2012 ending in guilty verdict

I have been through the criminal justice system 7 times in my life as a victim/survivor of rape and you would think that after the first couple of times things would be a lot easier, but sadly this is not the case in fact for me it just got harder. The brutality of this system as it stands leaves a person feeling totally humiliated and overwhelmed as very personal details are bandied all over the courtroom which also re-traumatises survivors as we have to relive in detail what has happened to us. This leads us to feel unsafe and absolutely shattered mentally, physically and emotionally for very long periods. The recommendations from the Law Commissions review into the trial process is a huge step into ensuring survivors safety and wellbeing but above all I believe it is a much fairer way of seeking the truth about what happened which is so very important for all concerned including that of the accused. We have an opportunity to improve a very archaic and unsafe justice system for survivors of sexual violence, let’s ensure the powers that be hear us very loudly and very clearly, changes need to be made.

Louise Nicholas: National Survivor Advocate

I feel mortally ashamed of our criminal justice system. I think how can we all be sitting here sanctioning this state voyeurism and re-victimisation? At times I have felt so despondent that I have considered resigning from my position as court support counsellor. I have not wanted to be part of this charade. What holds me in there is my determination to give survivor/victims a fighting chance by giving them a thorough understanding of the court process.

Jennifer Annan, Auckland Sexual Abuse Help, Court Support Counsellor

It is important you listen to those who have experienced the trauma and re-victimisation of it. If you have the misfortune of finding yourself in it, you too will experience the appalling consequences of it. Please support the changes recommended by the Law Commission and let the government know that we must have change now, not in 10 years’ time. Every woman/man/youth/child that enters the CJS as it currently is will have an incredibly onerous journey before them. It shouldn’t be this hard.

Supported by Auckland Sexual Abuse Help, Contact Jennifer Annan, email j.annan@sexualabusehelp.org.nz

Police are the key source of data we have. Police estimate that their data relates to approx. 25% of total family violence events. The remaining approx. 75% remains unreported.

The unknown portion must be considered in order to realistically make impacts on prevention and intervention. In effect, decisions are currently being made on the basis of evidence from a small portion of the entire population affected. As described to me, it is similar to basing decisions on data collected on family violence offenders who only drive white cars.

The data relating to the approx. 25% reported family violence is therefore significantly important. It is all we have.  We need to be able to gain as much insight from this data as is humanly possible. Police data collection had been painstakingly developed over the last 20 years. Now it appears we are starting again?

Police have indicated that they will now be collecting data at the individual level. This means they will be able to track victims and offenders. The sector is concerned that this focus at the individual level may negatively impact the ability to gain robust statistics on the bigger picture. What we need is both, not a one or other scenario.

The way in which this change has been planned, communicated and implemented by Police in isolation is representative of a common challenge in the family violence sector. Individual organisations continue to work as silos and base decisions on individual agency requirements and mandates regardless of the existence of interagency forums such as the Taskforce. Effective action on Family violence requires a whole of government approach.

This does not appear to have been the case here.

Got a ride with Councillor Alf Filipaina

 
We gave our condolences to the Crown Prince on arrival.

Most houses and properties wore mourning colours.

The road from the Royal Palace, where King Tupou was lying in state, to the burial ground was lined with school students.

King Tupou’s body was carried by a 1000 strong contingent in an austere yet impressive catafalque.

The Ceremony was 2 hours long with hymns, sermons and Bible reading. We were under cover but the students were in the sun and the army was standing to attention in the sun for the entire service. Only one fainted.

Met up with Auckland Mayor Len Brown.

With the support of the MFAT team including all the wonderful local people employed by the High Commission we were on a 5pm plane home. With over 50,000 Tongan people living in New Zealand and a history of close relationships it was really important for NZ to show our respect to the Royal family and the people of Tonga. Beyond this, it has been noted we have not been as available or present in the Pacific in recent times and China and Japan are increasingly visible presences. Our role in the Pacific is changing and our place is at risk.

The panel discussion held last week at Canterbury University featured the Minister of Women’s Affairs Hon Jo Goodhew, Local Wigram MP Megan Woods, Politics Lecturer Dr Jean Drage, University of Canterbury S Association President Erin Jackson, and Henrietta McNeill, President of UC Pols, as well as myself.

Women have achieved full equality in NZ: Yeah right.

The number of women in power matters not because it will change the world but because it's a symbol of our (lack of) progress.

I was pleased to hear Megan Woods push the issue of women in low paid work.

It's not enough to be at the table if we're not checking our analysis against the experience of a wide range of women.

It doesn't look as if the government's agenda has won over the audience.

Who said feminists are dour? Not this group.

Currently, women earn significantly less than men, especially when you look at weekly earnings. Women are more likely to be in minimum wage jobs, and are twice as likely as men to be working multiple jobs. Women are now working similar hours to men, but 65% of those hours are unpaid.

The 1972 Royal Commission on Social Security recommended that a new benefit be set at a level high enough to allow sole mothers to stay home to care for their children. In some ways this was an acknowledgement that care for children is work that we all take value from.

The Domestic Purposes Benefit, arising from the Royal Commission recommendations, was intended to help women with a dependent child or children who had lost the support of a husband, or were inadequately supported by him. We now know how many women are victims of violence, and can hopefully appreciate more fully exactly how important an independent income is in this situation.

When the John Key led Government started their welfare reform agenda with the Future Focus reforms, they built in an exemption from work testing for women leaving violent relationships.

In the context of low wages, a critical housing shortage, and women carrying the burden of unpaid work, it is especially important that we have a welfare system that will adequately support women to leave violent relationships.

I believe the real value of the DPB has declined so much that its effectiveness in enabling women to protect themselves and their children has already been undermined. Currently, some women are choosing to stay in violent relationships rather than subject themselves and their children to the poverty of the welfare system.

You might say “well she should just get a job”, but it’s not possible or desirable in many cases for a woman to stay in paid work or go out looking for paid work when she’s trying to help children adjust, heal herself, find new housing, deal with all the legal issues, as well as try to stay hidden from her partner.

To add work testing to an already undermined benefit really concerns me. My concern is that many women don’t know about the domestic violence exemption or are too shamed to disclose and so are not able to access the exemption. In 2010/11, 54 women across the country were granted the DPB and 15 the unemployment benefit for the reason ‘Women’s Refuge Application’.

When I asked Work and Income about why this number was so low, when Wellington Women’s Refuge alone works with more than 840 women each year, they said they don’t ask women and women may not want to say. That’s absolutely true and very worrying, because there is no point having an exemption if no-one knows about it or it’s not safe or practical to ask for it. Less than 10% of women experiencing domestic violence are likely to use Women’s Refuge.

This quote and media release from Wellington Women’s Refuge highlights the importance of the DPB:

Along with protection orders, the DPB is the only really useful tool that we have to help a woman see a way out for herself and her children.

I believe this Government’s welfare reforms risk further undermining one of our only tools to help women protect themselves and their children.

I spoke to someone at the Sallies a few days ago and they have been providing employment plus services for years, but are currently having difficulties because they’re not meeting their employment targets. That’s due to the lack of jobs out there. So in that context, it’s surprising to see them on Minister Bennett’s list.

However, if you read the confidence and supply agreement with Act, you will see it includes private sector businesses, as well as community organisations, as proposed providers of employment services.

This has been tried in the United Kingdom with quite spectacular results – results of coercion, corruption, and corporate greed to be more specific. I suspect this is the reason our Government is dressing this aspect of their reforms with respectable NGOs such as the Salvation Army, rather than selling us the supposed benefits of private sector involvement like they have with prisons and schools.

You can read all about what’s happened in the UK here: the £8.6 million dividend the director of one private provider company paid herself; government funding being claimed fraudulently by private providers on several occasions; people being coerced into working for up to two months with no pay; the displacement of paid workers, and existing staff losing the opportunity for overtime, through the use of beneficiaries as free labour.

I also think it’s worth acknowledging some of the difficulties not-for-profit NGOs will face in engaging as providers. I have absolutely no doubt that they have more capability and experience in effectively building relationships and working with young people than the private sector, and will do a good job if the conditions are right. I would like to add a few words of caution though:

1. Government often uses NGOs to deliver services more cheaply than it could. Sadly, this underfunding is often to such an extent that either the organisation is stretched or the programme compromised, or both. There is a real power imbalance between NGOs who are increasingly reliant on Government funding and Government as their funder, and this makes it difficult for NGOs to negotiate effectively
2. NGOs operate in a context of severely constrained funding. This means that if Government does adequately fund youth employment services, then the NGOs may well seek to use a slice of the funding to fund core services that have had funding reduced. This is in itself is not necessarily a problem, but sometimes it can get out of kilter.
3. The community, voluntary and tangata whenua sector is sometimes known as the third sector. It is an essential element in our democracy and society. All the research tells us that the strength of the third sector, among many others, is the ability to respond to community need and develop initiatives grounded in the needs of the community it is based in and serving, as well as being a conduit for the voices of people. I am very concerned to see the Government increasingly treating the sector as a cheaper version of a Government Department.  Cabinet papers show that NGOs involved in providing these services will be subject to many of the same conditions as MSD staff will, and will be expected to alert Work and Income to incidences of non-compliance, which will result in beneficiaries facing sanctions. I can’t see how this is not going to compromise those organisations, and I can see young people being further disconnected. It takes work to build trust with young people who have had overwhelmingly negative experiences of institutions.

Treasury has warned Cabinet against the contracting out approach, noting that due to the complex nature of beneficiary case work it will be very difficult to evaluate and ascertain whether contracted providers of employment services are offering the best value for money. But, as usual with this National-led Government, it seems ideology will triumph over expert advice.

Exactly what this might mean is somewhat unclear. It appears to include work experience, budgeting, short courses as well as training which may well also include higher level courses. I assume the activities proposed in individual cases will depend on the parent’s actuarial risk profile and whether the proposed activities are assessed as likely to save the government money in the long term.

Included in this seems to be the old Training Incentive Allowance, repackaged into a bursary. I’m guessing the difference is that rather than being an entitlement that any single parent could obtain, you’ll be eligible only if you meet certain criteria. Or perhaps there may be only a certain number on offer every year, and parents have to compete to win the bursary.

It looks likely to include full time activities. I think that’s great – if that’s the parent’s choice and it will suit the child/children. But these activities will be at the discretion of Work and Income when, and with what activities, to require a parent to engage.

While this may conjure up the image of an empathetic Work and Income officer who would only want what’s best for the child, many people have had very negative experiences of discretionary Work and Income systems. I recall how around 170,000 beneficiaries were underpaid under the old discretionary Special Benefit regime. Empathy can really struggle in the context of an organisational and cultural drive for outputs and savings.

Work experience also needs to be clarified, as in the UK we have seen existing staff lose overtime, and companies using beneficiaries on work experience to avoid hiring extra people over busy periods.

We also need to remember that this new scheme includes sanctions for not doing what you’re told by Work and Income. This may result in losing 50% of the benefit for parents with children, and a stand down period of 6-13 weeks. Many families are struggling to meet their existing costs on the full DPB. To suggest that their parents losing 50% of their below poverty line income will not cause harm and distress to children is naïve at best.

I’ve blogged previously about the DPB work testing requirements, touched on the loss of the TIA for higher level studies, and Metiria has blogged about incentivising contraception which we previously hoped had been taken off the table, but is now back there in black and white.

The latest papers give us detail about these changes. I’ll try to touch on some of the perhaps lesser acknowledged aspects of the reform. I’m focusing this post on the information sharing aspects of the Youth Package.

The changes will enable PHOs, educational institutions, and police to share information with private agencies contracted to Work and Income to provide “wrap around services” to young people. The Cabinet paper notes that there wasn’t time to adequately consult the Privacy Commissioner, who, I suggest, could be expected to have concerns about the changes.

Having been involved in youth health work for quite a few years, I find it concerning to see PHOs on the list of agencies subject to these proposed provisions. Youth Health services have been set up around the country in response to research that showed young people were not accessing services for a range of reasons, including concerns about confidentiality.

The Cabinet papers do not itemise the information that may be shared. They mention referring young people for family planning advice to get long term contraceptive devices or medication, they mention sanctions for young people whose ‘recreational’ alcohol and drug use creates a barrier to getting work, and they also mention mental health concerns as another barrier to employment.

We have doctor patient confidentiality for several reasons. If people delay treatment, for fear of censure or exposure, problems can compound. Many health issues are connected to social taboos, and this makes confidentiality even more important. I doubt doctors and other health professionals will be comfortable sharing information about a patient without the patient’s explicit consent, and I’m not yet sure what this will mean for the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights that guarantees the right to respect and privacy. The NZ Medical Association Code of Ethics also notes:

Protect the patient’s private information throughout his/her lifetime and following death unless there are overriding considerations in terms of public interest or patient safety.

If we have reached the point as a country that complying with employment readiness criteria is considered of such public interest that it overrides the right to privacy, maybe we should just start encouraging our young people to move to Australia.

Oh, actually, the state of the respective New Zealand and Australian economies is doing that anyway.

It’s a day celebrated by a holiday in many countries, and presents in some, but it’s also a rallying cry. It’s a day for us to reflect on our progress and really think about how our lives compare to men’s and how we would like to live.

I think we’re a long way from achieving a society free from gender violence. We’re a long way from achieving freedom and equality and we’re a long way from economic equality. Each of these compounds the other to hold us back. Some of us break through the net but this luck shouldn’t be used to justify a system that traps so many others.

1 in 3 who women are likely to experience domestic violence in their lifetime, women’s work, such as caring for the elderly is undervalued and under paid, and girls are still asking why men are in charge of everything.

The Government is telling us that the path to freedom is for beneficiaries and low paid workers to accept pretty much any job almost regardless of conditions and higher paid women should up-skill themselves a bit more and learn to promote themselves like a man.

I would however like to suggest that there are major structural and cultural inequalities at play. The division of unpaid labour, occupational segregation, violence and direct discrimination if unaddressed will continue to undermine our rights. Ignoring these realities is effectively discriminating against women.

Further, as we’re told it’s an even playing field and we all have the same opportunities, people who have additional barriers placed in their way whether it be from discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, ability, sexuality, age, or gender variance are further disadvantaged.

On this day I’m registering my frustration. I’m ready for change. That’s one of the reasons I’ve become a Green MP. I hope you’re all ready to join me in the next wave of feminist action for a fair society.

In the words of Emma Lazarus – “Until we are all free, we are none of us free.”

In summary these changes will mean that siblings and adult children will no longer be entitled to apply for residence, people who have English as another language will be required to pre pay for Language classes before getting residency and a two tier system will be set up regarding bringing parents into the country.

Basically it will be easier and faster for people with high incomes or funds to sponsor a parent and it will be much harder and take longer for everyone else.  At present sponsoring a parent to New Zealand is not an easy task.  A sponsor must undertake to ensure that financial support and accommodation is provided to for at least the first 5 years the parent is a resident in New Zealand.

This has implications for our global citizenship.

NZ has agreed immigration quotas for refugees and Pacific people.  New Zealand, in recent years has failed to meet its annual United Nations mandated refugee quota.

We have also failed to meet our commitments to the pacific region.  From 2002, under the Samoan quota, 1,100 Samoan citizens could be granted residence each year provided they had a job offer and met other conditions.

New Zealand has not met that quota for several years now. I’ve been told that this is considered an area of concern in Samoa and that there has previously been an official delegation sent to NZ to try to resolve the issue. MFAT has identified that the rule changes may be an issue for our pacific relationships, especially considering this year is the 50^th anniversary of the Samoa New Zealand Treaty of Friendship which first set a quota.

The Governments rule changes will make it harder for Pacific Island people to reunite with family members.

New Zealand brought in Pacific workers when we needed them in the 70s and then when the job market changed we treated them badly.  Since that time we have made some good progress.  I am saddened that these immigration changes will likely remind this community of those dark times.

Pacifica and refugee peoples are valued members of New Zealand society, to privilege people because of the amount of money in their bank account is to misunderstand what makes an economy and society work.

The TIA for higher level courses is proven to help people get off the DPB earlier and stay off it (the only other thing that seems to do that is a ‘catching’ a partner with a job). Reinstating the TIA would at least make the talk about an investment approach to welfare more plausible.

The government will pay for sub-degree courses up to level three. Many, though not all, of these courses will result in low paid jobs. Low paid jobs are often less flexible and it’s hard to stay in work when you’re struggling to pay for child care, or after school care and work around the needs of your children. Higher paid jobs are more likely to enable parents to successfully juggle family commitments. The evidence backs this up, clearly demonstrating that high level study enables people to get off the DPB earlier and stay off it longer.

I’ve written already about the personal pain this rule change has caused some women. As well as being a poor economic decision it’s also just unfair. When we have two pretty impressive women leaders in Parliament who both used the TIA to get their degrees I think we should all be able to see the potential of it.

Sadly, John Key’s Government is again proving itself to be mired in the traditional thinking that has resulted in increased inequality, a growing group of disenfranchised people who represent a massive pool of lost potential, and increasing costs to the State through the health sector in particular.

The Government is trying to present its welfare reforms as new and innovative; an actuarial approach to welfare, but when you look at the language and the shape of reforms it becomes clear there is not very much new in this approach. For anyone who lived through the nineties is seems all too familiar.

Requiring sole parents who have another child while on a benefit to be available for work after one year, in line with parental leave:

The Greens were worried that we might see a bizarre initiative to ‘encourage’ women on the DPB to get long-term reversible contraception to off-set the harshness of punishing them for getting pregnant while receiving a benefit. We know this was being considered. Thankfully this option has not surfaced as the implications of the State getting more involved in what happens in the bedrooms of beneficiaries are most disturbing.

I imagine this measure was being considered because the Minister realised it was a bad look to punish women for having children while on the DPB without making it any easier for them to prevent that possibility. (Please note the inferred absence of men in this scenario – I will let you draw your own conclusions on that.)

However much I disagree with the Government’s thinking, I absolutely agree that punishing women for having children is a bad look.

Anyone who has reflected on their own behaviour, let alone worked in family planning or youth health, will acknowledge that fertility and sexual relationships are very complex. We have to acknowledge all the possible reasons people have sex, and there are hundreds, and the things that can go wrong and result in an unplanned pregnancy are also many fold. The ideal of safely negotiated sexual relations that use barrier protection and a back- up contraception must be recognised as the ideal rather than the norm.

This may sound like an argument for the provision of contraception, but bodily integrity and sexual agency are two things we must value above budget lines. Incentivising women on the DPB to use invasive contraceptive methods raises human rights issues as well as obviously feeding the stigmatisation of women on the DPB as self-interested baby factories exploiting the generosity of the state to live the highlife.

I’ve worked alongside hundreds of women over the years that have been on the DPB. I can think of maybe two who thought the DPB would be a good financial choice. They were both as desperate to be loved unconditionally as they were to be financially independent. All the other women had different stories; many of them were/are really inspiring women who care about giving their children a safe future. Some weren’t that inspiring as parents but were doing the best they could with limited support and minimal cultural capital. The stereotype to me is completely untrue and offensive. The DPB is not a lifestyle choice.

Why should those on the DPB be subject to punishment when other low income families may be receiving just as much support from the state? I guess you can’t make someone who is already working go back to work earlier but a consistent logic might suggest they have their state support cut to stop them breeding. I think most people would find this idea morally repugnant.

The Green Party wants to support sole parents to parent actively. This would require lifting the base benefit rates and paying them the full rate of Working for Families so parents can pay rent, heat their houses and consistently feed and clothe their children and allow them to participate fully in their schooling. We have a significant and growing body of research that is telling us that educational achievement and life opportunities are severely hampered by childhood poverty. As our population ages, we become increasingly reliant on this next generation; we cannot afford not to invest in them.

Being pushed into poorly paid work that doesn’t support flexible working conditions will not enhance positive parenting or reduce child poverty.  It will just crowd the job market so employers can further drive down conditions. Maybe that’s what this Government’s reforms are really about.

This is because of the creation of the Auckland ‘Super City’ Council, which includes Manukau City, who have now indicated their intention to take over as the promoter of this bill. This move would mean that if passed, these bylaws would now apply to greater Auckland, not just Manukau City. Because of the wider implications of this change, the public now have another chance to submit on this bill.

The Green Party opposes this bill in its current form and will continue to oppose if it is extended to apply to the greater Auckland region. If passed, this would enable the council to re-criminalise soliciting in particular areas (of its choosing), which effectively recreates exactly the imposition on the rights of sex workers that existed before the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003.

This bill would see a step backwards from the gains made through the Prostitution Law Reform Act that we fought so hard for. It will enable councils to create their own criminal laws and impose a $2000 fine for soliciting, which is ten times the amount that sex workers were fined under the repealed law.  All the concerns we had back in 2003 will apply again if this law change happens – sex workers will be pushed underground, unable to take time to make proper assessments of clients, unlikely to take complaints of abuse to the police, be hindered in moving into alternative employment due to criminal convictions, and could discourage safe sex as condoms will be used in evidence.

The concerns of businesses and now local residents in Manukau have been investigated by the Ministry of Justice, as well as a previous Select Committee. These bodies argued against this “highly restrictive brothel control bylaw” because of the inappropriateness of councils to set criminal law, as well as arguing that there were other steps that could be taken to improve the environment, i.e. limit the sale of alcohol, which would be far more likely to address the local issues without causing harm to the workers.

We’ve written a submission guide, with key points on the bill and details on how to submit. Submissions can be made online or sent in via post and must be received by 5.00pm on Wednesday 29 February 2012, so there’s only a week left to have your say!

Tania has been getting a hard time about this. People working hard in low paid jobs now think she’s a bludger and are telling her so. The truth is though that someone working 30 hours a week on the minimum wage is still $87.28 a week better off than Tania. In fact, Tania is currently living below the poverty line.

Someone in Tania’s circumstances but in employment rather than study and earning $43,000 a year would get the same amount of childcare assistance and Family Tax Credit as Tania gets in addition to his or her salary. She or he would also get the In Work Tax Credit of $60 a week which Tania, as a student, cannot receive, and an Accommodation Supplement of $47.  Overall, he or she would have $327 a week more disposable income than Tania does.

The Associate Minister’s response in the House last week represents the worst type of cynical politics. Setting beneficiaries up against low paid workers is an old ploy to keep the marginalised down. It annoys me when it’s done in a generalised way, but to do this to an individual is a cruel type of politics.

The Government tells us the answer to child poverty is getting parents off the DPB. Yet when they’re presented with a woman studying to try to get off the DPB early and into a well-paid job they vilify her.

Here’s her story to give you more of a sense of reality:

Tania Wysocki , mother of two gorgeous children, has discovered that the only way she can cover the costs of higher study is by doing escort work, which she doesn’t want to do.

Tania left school with school certificate and has been working pretty much since then on stud farms. The unskilled work isn’t very well paid though and when she tried to go back to work after having children she was $60 pw worse off after travel and childcare costs were factored in.

Being highly motivated to build a better life for herself and her children Tania investigated a veterinary nursing course and was accepted based on her prior work experience. Tania doesn’t have to work or study but because she wants off the DPB she wants to do this now so she can get into well paid and fulfilling work.  Unfortunately the course is a level 6(degree level) course and the Government changed the rules last term and stopped the entitlement for the Training Incentive Allowance (TIA) for higher level courses. The TIA would have covered pretty much all of Tania’s travel and childcare costs. Without the TIA she is $113.42  a week short. It’s categorically untrue that she is not worse off without it.

The course is full time and the only work that will enable her to see her children and get some sleep/study done to cover that shortfall is escorting. She can earn the short-fall in a couple of hours and pay a friend to mind her children during that time. There is no other employer who will pay enough to cover the costs of childcare and let her spend time with her children every second weekend. When you look at it it’s really just a common sense solution. The only problem is that Tania doesn’t really want to do sex work and all of us know this is not a job to do when you don’t want to.

Tania is a brave woman who has spoken out knowing she will probably not get the benefit of a policy change but hopes others after her will. She’s exposed all her finances to the glare of New Zealand to this end.  I admire her.

Look at these numbers and tell me what costs could be cut. Actually, better yet, write and tell the Minister.

Income per week
DPB: $288.47
Accom. supplement: $131.00
Family tax credits: $149.23
Childcare subsidy: $138.24
Loan ($500/30 weeks): $16.67

Total: $723.61

Costs
Rent: $280.00
Groceries: $150.00
Petrol, car repairs etc: $67.00
Car & other insurances: $22.73
Phone: $17.50
Power: $12.50
Debt repayments: $12.50
Christmas club: $5.00
Childcare: $196.60
Train pass: $72.20
Total: $837.03

Shortfall: $113.42

I can only assume the Minister misrepresented and vilified Tania because her story exposes the hypocrisy and true results of the Government’s policies. This Government does not support social mobility or the kiwi battler. Social Development Minister Paula Bennett herself used the TIA to get a degree and now she is pulling the ladder up after her to keep parents in low paid work.

Tēnā koutou katoa, Toi te kupu. Toi te mana. Toi te whēnua. Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Raukawa, mē –tē hapū o Ngāti Haū-mia. Kiā ora koūtoū.

 E ngā iwi,- e ngā mana, – e ngā whānau o Kāpiti.  He mihi nui tēnei ki a koutou katoa. Tīhei Maūriora!

I would like first to acknowledge Ngāti Toa, Te Ati Awa, Ngāti Raukawa and our local hapū Ngāti Haumia. It is stunning today to look out at Kāpiti Island where the Treaty was signed by Te Ati Awa – ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Ngāti Raukawa I thank you for signing te Tiriti o  Waitangi and granting me a place to stand in this country. I also acknowledge that your reciprocal rights and autonomy as secured by the Te Tiriti have not been adequately protected and at times actively undermined.

I would also like to give my thanks to Kapiti –District Council and in particular Mayor Jenny Rowan, today’s programme looks like a result of a wonderful partnership and deep knowledge of our communities. Finally I would like to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Kris Fafoi, it is nice to share the stage with him without it being about votes.

Waitangi Day has always been a bitter sweet holiday to my mind. On one hand it’s a day to remember all that has been lost and all the threats that still continue. This week in the media we have heard the National government is looking to undermine Treaty relationships by selling off State Assets without adequate consultation and in the process remove the requirement to honour the treaty when considering our resources. And more recently we’ve heard the budget and staffing levels for Te Puni Kokiri will be dramatically slashed. Te Puni Kokiri is the primary voice for Māori into the work of Government. It is the essential working house for the government Treaty partnership.

We also see it here in this precious place of exceptional beauty the current threat of an expressway carving through the whenua and taking more precious, protected and fought for land.

Yet this day Waitangi day also reminds me of the potential for reconciliation shared understanding and partnership that is inherent in te Tiriti. 

It is our founding document, which set the framework for Māori and pākehā to live together peaceably in the same country, Aotearoa/ New Zealand. It is unique in the world, the only bi-lingual British treaty and the only treaty iwi signed with a foreign nation.

The Green Party is committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the living constitutional document of Aotearoa. We believe changes to our constitution should only happen with agreement of both treaty partners and we support restitution for historical and contemporary breaches.

Waitangi has become a symbol of nationhood. Over the last 171 years New Zealand different parts of New Zealand have committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and I would like to acknowledge all the councils and community groups and individuals as well as iwi, hapū and whānau who have embarked seriously on a path of considering what the treaty offers them and what the implications are for our lives and who have committed to working towards that goal.

Having travelled quite a lot the benefits of using the treaty as a guide are evident to me – it protects us from the possibility of seeing Māori talked about in the past tense in museums, it gives Maori a place to stand,  it guarantees the world distinct iwi cultures and all the stories and knowledge and culture held by each, it guarantees the uniqueness all the regions of this country, and gives tau iwi or tangata tiriti a valid claim to be here with integrity, it can also teach us the skills of partnership and communication.

My wish for today is that everyone leaves with a kernel of hope, trust, or inspiration for making te Tiriti a truly living document that could bring justice and honour to all our lives.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa