NewzIntel.com

Category: New Zealand Prime Minister

  • MIL-Evening Report: Winston Peters at 80: the populist’s populist clocks up 50 years of political comebacks

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    Getty Images

    Winston Peters turns a venerable 80 on April 11, but he showed no sign of retiring as New Zealand’s archetypal populist during his recent state of the nation speech. He especially enjoyed the hecklers, gleefully telling them one by one to get out.

    As ever, his detractors became extras in the Winston Peters show – something of a trademark in his long political career. As well as a milestone birthday, 2025 will mark 50 years since Peters’ first election campaign in 1975.

    In that first attempt, he ran unsuccessfully as the National Party candidate for the Northern Māori seat. In 1978, he won in Hunua, but only after a judicial recount. Already we can see a pattern: a dogged determination to come back and a lawyer’s litigious streak.

    His political instincts were formed in that era between 1975 and 1984 under prime minister Robert Muldoon, National’s original, pugnacious populist. It implanted pride in his nation, economic protectionism, and a belief in old-fashioned “common sense” politics.

    Those characteristics could also be his undoing. In 1991, Peters was sacked from Jim Bolger’s National cabinet for publicly criticising cabinet colleagues. He was later kicked out of the National caucus entirely and then vacated his seat.

    As his party website explains in retrospect, he’d questioned “the neoliberal policy agenda” and paid the price. He formed NZ First in 1993 and won back the seat of Tauranga. Ever since, the party known mockingly as “Winston First” has been inextricably identified with its (thus far) one and only leader.

    Winston Peters thanks supporters after winning the Tauranga seat for NZ First in 1993.
    Getty Images

    Coalitions of the willing

    Any mention of Winston Peters’ name gets a reaction, be it love, loathing or wry admiration. For the political scientist, though, his career is remarkable for its many ups and downs, and for sheer longevity.

    In New Zealand’s first proportional representation election in 1996, NZ First, still only three years old, won all of the (then five) Māori electorates. With 13.4% of the party vote (its best result ever), NZ First gained 17 seats, handing Peters a kingmaker role in the government formation negotiations.

    The upshot was a National-NZ First coalition, which broke up acrimoniously in 1998 after a disagreement about a proposal to sell Wellington Airport brought existing tensions between the parties to a head.

    At the 1999 election, NZ First lost the five Māori seats and its party vote plummeted to 4.3%. It got back into parliament only thanks to Peters holding Tauranga by a fingernail: a mere 63 vote majority.

    Dumped by Māori voters, he turned his attention to New Zealand’s growing retirement generations and climbed on board the anti-immigration bandwagon. In 2003, Peters launched an attack on “Third World immigrants” that rattled the National Party’s cage so hard it felt compelled to launch its own populist campaign.

    Then National leader Don Brash’s infamous speech at Orewa in 2004 centred around an alleged “dangerous drift towards racial separatism”. The country became polarised around Māori aspirations and the Treaty of Waitangi, not dissimilar to the effect today of the Treaty Principles Bill.

    Being a populist, Peters is sometimes mischaracterised as far right. But the more significant aspect of his career has been his centrist aptitude for collaborating with either National or Labour, depending on the political wind.

    Between 2005 and 2008, Peters supported Helen Clark’s Labour-led government, enjoying the plum job of foreign minister. But in 2008, National’s John Key categorically refused to work with Peters in government, and NZ First fell to 4.1% at the election.

    With no local electorate win this time, Peters was banished to the political wilderness. Many thought (or hoped) this would spell the end of his career. But he was back in 2011, aiming to be in opposition against Key’s National government. He succeeded in this – and confounded his critics – with a party vote of 6.6%.

    Winston Peters and Labour’s Jacinda Ardern sign the coalition agreement in 2017.
    Getty Images

    COVID and comebacks

    The strategy of seeing out the Key (and successor Bill English) years on the cross benches worked well, with the 2014 election delivering a party-vote boost to 8.7%.

    Peters’ next big break came after the 2017 election when he once again played kingmaker. Although National won the most seats, Peters chose a coalition with Jacinda Ardern’s Labour, with support from the Greens.

    But NZ First’s voter-base had been evenly split over supporting a National-led or Labour-led government. Inevitably, the party would be punished for choosing to go with either major party. And indeed, its share dropped from 7.2% in 2017 to 2.6% in the 2020 election – its worst result ever.

    Once again, Peters was cast out into the wilderness, to the undoubted delight of his many detractors. It was over, surely? As the 2023 election approached, there was considerable doubt about Peters making yet another comeback.

    His party was polling better than in 2011, however, and in the end romped home with 6.1% of the vote. Peters used his bargaining power to become foreign minister and deputy prime minister in the current National-led coalition.

    Some may have wondered how the wily old fox found his way back into the coop. But we can trace at least some of the reason back to a stroll Peters took through the COVID protest camp in parliament grounds in February 2022.

    He said he was there to listen, whereas the Ardern government’s refusal to talk with protestors was “just going to make things much worse”. To make his day, parliament’s speaker Trevor Mallard had Peters trespassed from parliament, which only boosted his maverick reputation – and helped pave the way back to power.

    Not his first rodeo

    Peters courted an anti-vax, anti-globalist constituency, promising to “defend freedom” by ending vaccine mandates and holding “a credible fully independent inquiry into New Zealand’s COVID-19 response”.

    Both things were going to happen anyway. But Peters won votes that might otherwise have gone to fringe protest parties, none of which got more than 1.2%.

    Like a Pied Piper in a double-breasted pinstripe suit, he led the disgruntled all the way to the ballot box. One campaign video featured him in cow-cocky gear, mounting a horse and boasting “this is not our first rodeo”. Among the current generation of politicians, only he could have pulled that off.

    Peters possesses a canny political instinct that combines opportunism with attention-grabbing rhetoric. He can drum up enough enthusiasm from target audiences to get his party over (or back over) the 5% MMP threshold.

    His recent declaration of a “war on woke” shows he’s doing it again. He zeros in on a political pain-point to energise a support base and simultaneously enrage opponents. The latter – along with “the mainstream media” – are used as props as he campaigns from one provincial community hall to the next.

    At 80, Peters is as well adapted to posting on Elon Musk’s X as he is to old-school hustings politics. And he’s showing no sign of calling it a day as he prepares to hand over the office of deputy prime minister to ACT’s David Seymour later this year.

    As the 2026 election draws nearer, one thing will be certain – you can’t rule him out. Don’t be surprised if one day we see an AI-generated Winston Peters telling us this is neither his first nor his last rodeo.

    Grant Duncan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Winston Peters at 80: the populist’s populist clocks up 50 years of political comebacks – https://theconversation.com/winston-peters-at-80-the-populists-populist-clocks-up-50-years-of-political-comebacks-253322

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: PNG’s Marape and NZ’s Luxon sign new partnership marking 50 years

    RNZ News

    The prime ministers of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea have signed a new statement of partnership marking 50 years of bilateral relations between the two countries.

    The document — which focuses on education, trade, security, agriculture and fisheries — was signed by Christopher Luxon and James Marape at the Beehive in Wellington last night.

    It will govern the relationship between the two countries through until 2029 and replaces the last agreement signed by Marape in 2021 with then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern.

    Marking the signing, Luxon announced $1 million would be allocated in response to Papua New Guinea’s aspirations to strengthen public sector institutions.

    “That funding will be able to support initiatives like strengthen cooperation between disaster preparedness institutions and also exchanging expertise in the governance of state owned enterprises in particular,” Luxon said.

    In his response Marape acknowledged the long enduring relationship between the government and peoples of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea.

    He said the new statement of partnership was an important blueprint on how the two countries would progress their relationship into the future.

    “Papua New Guinea brings to the table, as far as our relationship is concerned, our close proximity to Asia. We straddle the Pacific and Southeast Asia, we have an affinity to as much as our own affinity with our relations in the Pacific,” Marape said.

    “Our dual presence at APEC continues to ring [sic] home the fact that we belong to a family of nations and we work back to back on many fronts.”

    Meeting Peters
    Today, Marape will meet with Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters and leader of the opposition Chris Hipkins.

    Later in the week, Marape is scheduled to travel to Hamilton where he will meet with the NZ Papua New Guinea Business Council and with Papua New Guinea scholarship recipients at Waikato University.

    James Marape is accompanied by his spouse Rachael Marape and a ministerial delegation including Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko, Trade Minister Richard Maru, Minister for Livestock Seki Agisa and Higher Education Minister Kinoka Feo.

    This is Marape’s first official visit to New Zealand following his re-election as prime minister in the last national elections in 2022.

    According to the PNG government, the visit signals a growing relationship between the two countries, especially in trade and investment, cultural exchange, and the newly-added Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme that New Zealand has extended to Papua New Guineans to work in Aotearoa.

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

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Hipkins accuses PM of undermining NZ’s nuclear-free stance in India memo

    RNZ News

    New Zealand opposition Labour leader Chris Hipkins is accusing the prime minister of reversing a long-held foreign policy during his current trip to India to help secure a free trade agreement between the two countries.

    “It seems our foreign policy is up for grabs at the moment,” he said, citing Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s seeming endorsement of India’s bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group despite New Zealand’s previous long-standing objection.

    “I think these are bad moves for New Zealand. We should continue to be independent and principled in our foreign policy.”

    Hipkins was commenting to RNZ Morning Report on a section of the joint statement issued after Luxon met with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday.

    It included a reference to India’s hopes of joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

    NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Indian PM Narendra Modi at the Sikh temple Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib . . . “both acknowledged the value of India joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).” Image: RNZ

    “Both leaders acknowledged the importance of upholding the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime and acknowledged the value of India joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in context of predictability for India’s clean energy goals and its non-proliferation credentials,” the statement said, as reported by StratNews Global.

    The NSG was set up in 1974 as the US response to India’s “peaceful nuclear test” that year. Comprising 48 countries, the aim was to ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes does not contribute to the proliferation of atomic weapons, the report said.

    India is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which is one of the pre-requisites of joining the NSG.

    NZ objected to India
    In the past New Zealand has objected to India joining the NSG because of concern access to those nuclear materials could be used for nuclear weapons.

    “So it’s a principled stance New Zealand has taken. Christopher Luxon signed that away yesterday,” Hipkins said.

    “He basically signed a memo that basically said that we supported India joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group despite the fact that India has consistently refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

    It was “a reversal” of previous policy, Hipkins said, and undermined New Zealand’s nuclear-free stance.

    But a spokesperson for Foreign Minister Winston Peters denied there had been a change.

    “New Zealand’s position on the Nuclear Suppliers Group has not changed, contrary to what Mr Hipkins claims. The joint statements released by the New Zealand and Indian Prime Ministers in 2016 and 2025 make that abundantly clear,” he said.

    “If Mr Hipkins or his predecessor Jacinda Ardern had travelled to India during their six years as Prime Minister, the Labour Party might understand this issue and the New Zealand-India relationship a bit better.”

    Opposed to ‘selling out’
    Peters was also Foreign Minister during the first three years of the Ardern government.

    On a possible free trade deal with India, Hipkins said he did not want to see it achieved at the expense of “selling out large parts of New Zealand’s economy and potentially New Zealand’s principled foreign policy stance” which would not be good for this country.

    “The endorsement of India joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group is a real departure.”

    Comment has been requested from the Prime Minister’s office.

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

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: The Oppression the Left Forgot

    Source: ACT Party

    The Haps

    Your property is safe as Parliament is shut and David Seymour is the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday, ACT made the big announcement that for the first time ever, we’re seeking candidates to stand in local council elections. We want common-sense Kiwis to champion lower rates, less waste, equal rights, and an end to the war on cars. If that sounds like you, learn more at actlocal.nz.

    Meanwhile ACT MPs have been out in force at A&P Shows and Field Days, they report tremendous support from rural New Zealand and we are grateful to hear it.

    The Oppression the Left Forgot

    Besides a pandemic, the last decade has consisted of economic paralysis and cultural division as Governments dumped years of live-and-let-live liberalism to focus on identity politics. Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau were the pin ups for this dismal movement, managing to tank their respective countries’ economies and make everyone angry at each other.

    Free Press regrets to inform you that the DEI brigade missed a large oppressed group. This group has disastrous education statistics, lives years less than the national average, in part because of their high suicide rates, and is far more likely to be arrested, charged, sentenced, and imprisoned. Some speculate this is due to years of violence, including being held in state institutions, and in armed conflict.

    In recent years, prominent members of this group have been forced by their managers into public humiliation, pronouncing that they’re sorry for being part of this group. The group is regularly ridiculed in media and advertising, and not expected to complain.

    The group is, of course, men. If any other group had the social statistics men do, there would be a special ministry, a ‘day,’ targeted support programs, and probably quotas to help them on their way.

    That there is none of that, and that some people will be angry to read any of this, is just one of those modern mysteries. Why are men such a blind spot for all the luvvies, despite dismal social statistics that would normally justify an entire Government department?

    Some will point out that women do face serious problems. Domestic and sexual violence are overwhelmingly problems for women. Even today there is a connection between domestic work and earned income. Claudia Goldin won the Nobel prize for explaining the remaining gender pay gap this way.

    Other people having problems, or even causing other peoples’ problems, has never stopped the luvvies before. There must be some better reason why men’s abysmal suffering is not the subject of some major leftie sympathy.

    Our best theory is that men doing badly blows up the whole DEI identity politics movement of the past decade. The movement’s basic story is that if anything is wrong in the world it’s because bad people have been oppressing them, perhaps for hundreds of years.

    Why are Māori doing badly in the stats? Colonisation. Women? The patriarchy. LGBTQI+. So many reasons. There is even a fattist movement claiming ‘society’ has designed its aeroplane seats, magazines, and institutions to silence fat voices (we are not making this up).

    But who oppressed men? Men can’t be oppressed. They are needed to play the villain of the piece. In a play where everyone is a victim or a villain for historic reasons, not everyone can be good, and certainly not those needed to be bad.

    A worse conclusion would be that women are oppressing boys. Practically all early childhood teachers, six-out-of-seven primary teachers, and two-out-of-three high school teachers are women.

    If it was the other way around the picture would seem sinister. Perhaps teacher gender is why last year 42 per cent of girls came out of high school with University Entrance compared with 32 per cent of boys. Oddly this explanation of oppression by a dominant group has not been emerged.

    Nor should it. The whole idea that we are not thinking and valuing individuals but instead members of a group is bunk. It’s led to more division and anger than it’s worth (which is not much to start with). It’s disempowered people by making them think they are products of history, instead of masters of their own destiny.

    A better way is to let people problem solve by innovating. Charter schools are a pin-up example of this. Vanguard Military School (run by ex-servicemen), and Te Aratika Academy (run by a civil construction firm) offered different education that some might see as filling the male role-model gap in education.

    The same could be said for most problems we’re currently blaming on colonisation, the patriarchy, or whatever cause du jour is on people’s minds. More innovation in social services, more economic opportunity for people who want to take it, a more dynamic and innovative society generally is what’s needed.

    For all those who still think the world is made up of victims and villains, with the past made up of endless oppression, what are you doing for men?

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Politically weakened’ or ‘muddling through’ – Luxon and Hipkins ranked on their mid-term prospects

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grant Duncan, Teaching Fellow in Politics and International Relations, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    Getty Images

    We’re roughly half way through this parliamentary term, and it looks as though the 2026 election could deliver “Christopher vs Chris: the sequel”.

    Neither leader is currently riding high, though. National’s Christopher Luxon and Labour’s Chris Hipkins are both scoring in the low 20s in the most recent preferred prime minister polls.

    Most voters, it seems, are ambivalent or unimpressed with them. And Luxon has been the subject of media speculation about a possible leadership change.

    But it pays to be cautious, especially this far from an election. Leadership is a complex mix of individual ability, career stage and political context.

    We can think of political leaders having a “stock” of leadership “capital” that fluctuates over time. They build up credit or authority, but they have to spend it. Former supporters can become bored, disappointed or disillusioned.

    Any assessment of a leader will involve some subjective judgements. But the Leadership Capital Index (LCI) was developed by three British and European political scientists as a framework for scoring leadership on a range of sliding measures.

    As this example using former British prime minister Tony Blair shows, the LCI accounts for a leader’s skills, support and reputation based on their performance, polling and prospects over time.

    I applied the LCI to Hipkins and Luxon. Ideally, this would be conducted by a panel, and more than once over a career. But readers are welcome to examine and comment below on my assessments – a virtual panel, if you like. You can see more detail about my reasoning here.

    The LCI’s ten factors are a mixture of the objective and subjective, adding up to an overall ranking of a leader’s political capital on a five-point scale:

    • depleted – “lame duck”

    • low – “politically weakened”

    • medium – “muddling through”

    • high – “momentum”

    • exceptional – “political weather maker”.

    Neither Luxon nor Hipkins performed very well: Luxon came out on the low-capital range looking “politically weakened”, while Hipkins was “muddling through” on medium capital.

    Leadership capital changes over time, and the LCI takes account of that. This assessment relates to mid-March 2025.

    The Leadership Capital Index

    1. Political/policy vision: (1. Completely absent. 2. Unclear/inconsistent. 3. Moderately clear/consistent. 4. Clear/consistent. 5. Very clear/consistent.)

    I’ve given both leaders 4 out of 5 here. Both have presented clear and consistent political and policy visions. Readers who disagree will see I take some relevant issues into account in the items below.

    2. Communication performance: (1. Very poor. 2. Poor. 3. Average. 4. Good. 5. Very good.)

    Luxon has been struggling here. His failure to give broadcaster Mike Hosking a straight answer about a cabinet sacking didn’t help, and he has been criticised for his corporate speaking style. Hipkins has performed better as a communicator (regardless of your views on his values). I’ve given Luxon 2/5 and Hipkins 4/5.

    3. Personal poll rating relative to the most recent election: (1. Very low (–15% or less), 2. Low (–5 to –15%), 3. Moderate (–5% to 5%), 4. High (5-15%), 5. Very High (15% or more).)

    This is an objective numerical measure based on preferred prime minister polls just before the 2023 election compared with the most recent ones. Both Luxon and Hipkins score 3/5.

    4. Longevity (time in office as prime minister): (1. less than 1 year. 2. 1-2 years. 3. 2-3 years. 4. 3-4 years. 5. More than 4.)

    At March 2025, Luxon gets 2/5 and Hipkins gets 1/5. If we included time in office as party leaders, the numbers would be higher.

    5. Selection margin for party leadership: (1. Very small (less than 1%). 2. Small (1-5%). 3. Moderate (5-10%). 4. Large (10-15%). 5. Very large (more than 15%).)

    Both leaders were elected as party leader by their respective caucuses. These votes are private, but it’s known Hipkins’ selection was unanimous. I believe Luxon also won by a large margin (greater than 15%). So they both get 5/5.

    6. Party polling relative to most recent election result: (1. –10% or lower. 2. –10% to –2.5%. 3. –2.5% to +2.5%. 4. +2.5% to 10%. 5. More than 10%.)

    In early March, Labour was polling in the low 30s, up from an election result of 26.9%. So Hipkins gets 4/5. National was also polling in the low 30s, down from 38.1%. So Luxon gets 2/5.

    7. Levels of public trust: (1. 0-20%. 2. 20-40%. 3. 40-60%. 4. 60-80%. 5. 80-100%.)

    Going back to a “trust” poll in early 2023 and a similar one in May that year, Luxon scored a lower trust level (37%) than Hipkins (53%). So Luxon gets 2/5 and Hipkins gets 3/5.

    8. Likelihood of credible leadership challenge within next 6 months: (1. Very high. 2. High. 3. Moderate. 4. Low. 5. Very low.)

    This relies on predictions, but Luxon is in greater danger than Hipkins. National’s polling is down, with some predicting a leadership change (although others acknowledge this could carry more costs than benefits). Hipkins lost the 2023 election but seems secure as Labour leader. Luxon gets 3/5 (moderate risk) and Hipkins gets 4/5 (low risk).

    9. Perceived ability to shape party’s policy platform: (1. Very low. 2. Low. 3. Moderate. 4. High. 5. Very high.)

    This is subjective but not about liking or disliking the policies. Both leaders perform moderately well here on 3/5. Luxon has put his own managerial style on policymaking, notably with quarterly targets. When Jacinda Ardern resigned as prime minister, Hipkins lit a “policy bonfire” to begin afresh. But he is taking time to announce new ones. We’d expect to see improvements for both leaders closer to the election.

    10. Perceived parliamentary effectiveness: (1. Very low. 2. Low. 3. Moderate. 4. High. 5. Very high.)

    Hipkins has an advantage, given his greater parliamentary experience. Luxon hasn’t dealt decisively with two attention-grabbing coalition partners, especially over ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill. Hipkins gets 4/5, Luxon 2/5.

    Final scores – now have your say

    The results add up to a ranking on the leadership capital index. Out of a possible 50, Luxon scores 28 and Hipkins 35. Neither is a great score; both careers look stalled.

    On the index, this defines Luxon as “politically weakened”. This could improve through better communication, sounder leadership of an ambitious team, and greater control over coalition dynamics.

    But Luxon’s leadership capital has never been particularly high. He didn’t enjoy a post-election “honeymoon” and may have peaked early – and low. More low polls may see National remove him, but there is also still time for his policies to pay off.

    The index has Hipkins “muddling through”. He needs to connect with voters, boost his reputation as a future leader (rather than election loser) and sharpen Labour’s policy platform.

    Hipkins’ leadership capital might have peaked in early 2023 when he became prime minister. Labour party polls are up a bit since the election, but his own preferred prime minister polling has stayed relatively low.

    Finally, neither leader has performed well compared with their predecessors John Key and Jacinda Ardern at their heights. But political fortunes can be unpredictable, and crises can even boost them, so the future remains unwritten.

    Is this assessment fair or unfair? Readers are welcome to critique my analysis and offer alternative ratings in the (moderated) comments section below.

    Grant Duncan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘Politically weakened’ or ‘muddling through’ – Luxon and Hipkins ranked on their mid-term prospects – https://theconversation.com/politically-weakened-or-muddling-through-luxon-and-hipkins-ranked-on-their-mid-term-prospects-252483

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Online violence and misogyny are still on the rise – NZ needs a tougher response

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Canterbury

    Yesterday’s revelation of a 2023 standoff between the Human Rights Commission and New Zealand’s internet safety agencies highlights lingering concern about the current online safety code.

    According to the report from RNZ, the commission told NZ Tech and Netsafe that social media companies X Corp. and Meta failed to protect former prime minister Jacinda Ardern from misogynistic and dehumanising violence across their platforms.

    The commission’s claim that the Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms was not fit for purpose apparently drew a sharp legal response from the agencies, which argued the commission showed bias and had overstepped its remit.

    But the historical incident raises important questions New Zealand has yet to grapple with properly.

    Established in 2022, the code is a voluntary set of commitments co-designed with the technology industry, including some social media companies such as Meta and X-Corp.

    Companies become signatories to the code and agree to its commitments. The current signatories are Meta, Google, TikTok, Twitch and X Corp.

    Among other provisions, the code asks signatories to take steps to reduce harmful content on their platforms or services, including harassment (where there is an intent to cause harm), hate speech (which includes sexist hate speech), incitement of violence and disinformation.

    The code is not legally enforceable. Compliance relies on willingness to adopt such measures. But there is an accountability structure in the form of an oversight committee. The public can lodge complaints with the committee if they believe signatories have breached the code, and the committee can remove a signatory from the code.

    When it was launched, the code received some international acclaim as an example of best practice for digital safety. But its critics argued that because it was co-written with social media companies, the commitments were not as strong or effective as they might have been.

    Jacinda Ardern was the target of extreme levels of online misogyny and violent rhetoric.
    Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

    Is the code effective?

    Last year, Netsafe rang the alarm about increasing rates of online misogyny and violent extremism, including the targeting of public figures and politicians.

    This raises obvious questions about the code’s effectiveness. Since the Human Rights Commission cited the extreme online violence directed at Jacinda Ardern, former Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman has spoken about the violent online misogyny and racism she experienced while in office.

    These forms of gender-based violence are a breach of women’s human rights. They also lead to women politicians self-censoring, avoiding social media, and generally having less contact with the public.

    Some overseas studies have shown prolonged exposure to online violence has led to women MPs leaving office sooner than planned. Overall, online harm endangers representative democracy and breaches women’s rights to participate in politics.

    The human rights implications also mean the New Zealand government has legal duties under international treaties to prevent online gender-based violence.

    The United Nations has also called on social media companies to do more to prevent the spread of racial hatred. As such, it is a function of the Human Rights Commission to promote and monitor compliance with international standards.

    NZ is out of step internationally

    In its current form, the code is not effective. Its commitments aim to reduce harm rather than eliminate it, and it is not comprehensive about the kinds of harm it wants signatories to reduce.

    For example, it does not include reference to “volumetric” attacks – the type of coordinated harassment campaigns against a person that were directed at Ardern.

    Further, the code’s threshold for “harm” is high, requiring the online violence to pose an imminent and serious threat to users’ safety. This does not easily capture the types of gender-based violence, such as misogynistic hate speech, that over time normalise violence against women.

    The code also emphasises the role of users in managing harmful content, rather than placing a responsibility on the platforms to investigate how their services and technologies might be misused to cause harm.

    Relying on voluntary commitments also puts New Zealand out of step with other countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia which have legally enforceable requirements for social media companies to protect online safety.

    Placing that burden on users – to block, report or remove content – is merely reactive. It does not prevent harm because it has already happened. And for some groups, such as MPs and public figures, the harm they receive can be overwhelming and seemingly endless.

    Preventing online gender-based violence requires proactive measures that are legally enforceable. To fulfil its international obligations, the government should urgently review the need for legal regulation that places the burden of online safety on large social media companies rather than on users.

    Cassandra Mudgway does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Online violence and misogyny are still on the rise – NZ needs a tougher response – https://theconversation.com/online-violence-and-misogyny-are-still-on-the-rise-nz-needs-a-tougher-response-250033

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Owning the Wrong Stuff

    Source: ACT Party

    The Haps

    David Seymour’s speech at the Treaty Grounds today is widely anticipated. This week’s Free Press covers other matters, but for a preview of ACT’s Treaty approach, you can read Seymour’s column in the Herald.

    The COVID Royal Commission, Mark II, designed by Brooke van Velden, is open to public submissions, and now there’s an online portal to make it easy. After Labour’s attempted whitewash, ACT campaigned for people to be able to say what they think about the lockdowns, mandates, and other public health measures. There will be another pandemic, probably not this decade but almost certainly this century, and lessons learned from this one could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

    If you don’t normally listen to Radio New Zealand, we understand. However Kathryn Ryan interviewed David Seymour for half an hour on the Regulatory Standards Bill, and we think it’s worth an exception.

    Owning the Wrong Stuff

    Last Monday we shared David Seymour’s State of the Nation speech. This week it is still in the headlines. How is this possible? The speech said two things people know deep down are true, but politicians are afraid to say.

    The Government owns the wrong stuff. Its books show $570 billion worth of assets, enough to build a four-lane highway from Whangarei to Invercargill six times, but you wouldn’t know it. The Government is having to downsize hospitals while the rest of the world is buying military hardware, and our roads and pipes need attention.

    Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the Government is invested in houses (60,000), a property valuation firm, farms, electricity generators, and sunset industries such as mail and television, among many other weird and wonderful things.

    Could it be an idea to, just maybe, just ask the question, without anyone getting their knickers in a knot: Does the Government own the right stuff. And if not, should it try selling some shares in power companies to invest in some roads and water treatment plants?

    Perhaps all Governments should think of ownership like this. Every year we ask what we own, what benefits the public get from it, and could the Government own something with greater public benefits for the same money? If the answer is yes, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to change, then sell the thing that doesn’t pay and buy something that does.

    As for healthcare and education, the Government shells out a fortune, nearly $6,000 in healthcare for every single person each year. That’s up from $4,000 five years ago, but nobody’s happy. Perhaps it is time to say, if you want to take your $6,000 to a private insurer like Southern Cross, you can.

    There would have to be rules. The company would need to accept any patient who applied, without discrimination. The company could never cancel anyone’s policy. They would become responsible for all of the person’s care. Hospitals still owned by the Government would need to accept patients from any insurer at the same price.

    If this all sounds out there, fear not. It’s roughly how most healthcare systems in Europe work. It means that there would be people with an incentive to sort out the endless waste and dysfunction in what’s been described as our third world system run by first world medics.

    The Left say in a private system the poor miss out. Europeans would be surprised to hear this. What the Left don’t seem to get is this: You can have equal public funding, but allow competition to provide the service. Some would say the best of all worlds.

    Of course there is a reason why few politicians dare to raise these questions. The media have demanded to know from David Seymour exactly what he will sell tomorrow. They want a list. The hard Left say this is another Seymourian conspiracy, but they can’t say what. The Opposition have called on the Chris Luxon to rule out ever selling anything. Luxon says he won’t now but might in the future.

    There’s another reason why there are still articles in today’s papers, ten days after the speech was given. People know that, while New Zealand is a success story, as countries go, we’re not holding our ground at the moment. What we’re doing isn’t working.

    If we want to remain a first world nation and an island paradise—most countries can only do one—we need to work differently. That’s the other thing about Seymour’s speech, it told the truth we avoided all through the Clark-Key-Ardern era.

    As goes the Treaty Principles Bill, so goes this speech. This country needs a party that’s brave, articulate, and patriotic, and we’re glad we have ACT.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: We’ve heard you.

    Source: ACT Party

    The Government has been getting it in both ears over new climate commitments it’s made under the Paris Agreement.

    James Shaw and Jacinda Ardern signed us up to impossible targets. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts is trying to make them workable.

    As ACT’s Agriculture and Rural Communities spokesman, I’m writing to say: We’ve heard you.

    As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, New Zealand is required to sign up to increasingly ambitious emissions targets. That’s what has led to the Climate Change Minister’s latest commitment.

    However, ACT has heard serious concern over the economic impact of the Government’s commitment, including costs likely to be lumped on farmers.

    Yesterday, the Herald interviewed David Seymour about the Paris Agreement:

    We know New Zealand farmers are the most efficient in the world, and it does not make sense to reduce New Zealand food production only to see other less efficient farmers overseas picking up the slack.

    In short, ACT is listening, and we encourage you to pass on your concerns to the Climate Change Minister and your local MP.

    Meanwhile, ACT’s Ministers in the Government are delivering common sense, affordable policy in key areas that affect farmers such as replacing the handbrake that is the RMA, simplifying freshwater farm plans, and stopping the implementation of last Government’s attack on property rights with their directive on Significant Natural Areas. I’ve also lodged a member’s bill in Parliament’s ballot to stop councils from considering local emissions when granting resource consents.

    ACT is determined not to sacrifice farmers and growers at the altar of the climate gods. There is more work to be done to return to common sense, and I hope we’ll have your support.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Universities – Remarkable climate solutions nominated for this year’s Earthshot Prize – Vic

    Source: Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington

    An ocean remediation project, a predator-free blueprint, cleaner greenhouses, and a clean technology pioneer are the nominees put forward this year by Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington to be considered for one of five £1,000,000 ($1.9m NZD) 2025 Earthshot Prizes.

    The Earthshot Prize finds and grows the solutions that will repair our planet, addressing the challenge to regenerate the place we all call home in the next ten years. As a thought leader in sustainability, the University is the only official nominator based in New Zealand.

    These remarkable sustainability solutions were selected by a panel for their potential for global impact, ability to be scaled or replicated, various environmental metrics, and solid organisational foundations.

    The Earthshot Prize has a network of nominators all over the world who nominate game-changing innovations that will help repair the planet, awarding the best five solutions each year with £1 million to scale their work. The independent charity was founded by Prince William, and former Prime Minister, Dame Jacinda Ardern, is on the Board of Trustees.

    The prizes are awarded to projects that highlight human ingenuity, drive change, and inspire collective action. The Earthshot Prize not only makes available the transformative financial resources of £5 million per year, it also has built a global, diverse, and hugely influential network of partnerships and collaborations involved with all levels of how the Prize works. All finalists get access to mentoring and support throughout the process.

    In 2023, one of the University’s nominees, Sea Forest Ltd, was one of the fifteen finalists for The Earthshot Prize. (ref. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/sustainability/about-us/news/methane-busting-seaweed-a-finalist-for-international-earthshot-prize )

    The University’s nominees this year are:

    Predator Free Wellington

    New Zealand is at the top of the global list for threatened or endangered native species resulting from predation by introduced mammals. Predator Free Wellington is creating the world’s first predator-free capital city where native wildlife and communities thrive. They are creating the urban blueprint for the Predator Free Aotearoa New Zealand 2050 goal. The Predator Free Wellington team are developing a scalable, replicable system to permanently eliminate target introduced predators (rats, possums, mustelids) from Wellington city’s 30,000 hectares. This transformational project is a world-first, being delivered in partnership with every single resident and providing a replicable system for urban environments everywhere.

    Kaipara Moana Remediation

    The Kaipara is the southern hemisphere’s largest harbour and a place of global importance. Once home to ancient forests, the 600,000-hectare catchment is now degraded by land clearance, with around 700,000 tonnes of sediment flowing into the harbour each year, and 90 percent of wetlands lost. Through novel collaborations, investment in people, and ‘end-to-end’ support, Kaipara Moana Remediation mobilises landowners, iwi/hapū, communities, industry, and government to protect 16,200 kilometres of riparian margins, regenerate wetlands, and re-forest eroding hillsides. Using next-generation digital tools to identify ‘hotspots’ in the landscape, Kaipara Moana Remediation supports landowners to offset on-farm emissions, restore ecosystem remnants, and improve resilience to cyclones and floods impacting local communities.

    Hot Lime Labs

    Seventy percent of commercial greenhouses use natural gas for heat and yield-boosting CO2. The CO2 byproduct from natural gas is critical for greenhouses as it boosts yield by around 20 percent. No other greenhouse heating solution delivers clean CO2, so transitioning from natural gas carries a huge penalty and a major abatement challenge. The Hot Lime Labs vision is to decarbonise half the world’s greenhouses by 2030, reducing fossil emissions by 120 megatons per year. Hot Lime extracts CO2 from forestry and crop waste, replacing fossil-based CO2. Their solution delivers renewable CO2, boosting customer yields and enabling greenhouses to transition to renewable heating and decarbonise their operations.

    Mint Innovation

    As global mineral reserves deplete and decarbonisation becomes existential, Mint Innovation offers a sustainable solution. Mint is a clean technology pioneer, leveraging the world’s fastest growing waste streams and transforming them into value for a greener future. Their patented low-carbon technologies recover critical metals, such as copper, lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earths from waste streams such as e-waste and spent li-ion batteries. Mint brings its world-first technology to these waste streams in city-scale facilities to return low-carbon metals back into local economies. The technology will help reduce our reliance on unsustainable practices like smelting and mining for mineral recovery, while diverting waste from landfills and preventing the export of hazardous waste to developing nations where it is typically disposed of in dangerous and highly pollutive ways.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: As the ‘digital oligarchy’ grows in power, NZ will struggle to regulate its global reach and influence

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Andhov, Chair in Law and Technology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    The images of President Donald Trump at his inauguration surrounded by the titans of the global tech industry is a warning of what could come: a global digital oligarchy dominated by a tiny tech elite.

    Companies like Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, X Corp, and OpenAI (all based in the United States) now operate beyond the control of most governments. Countries like New Zealand are increasingly struggling to keep these companies in check.

    In the past decade, New Zealand has taken several measures to curb the influence of powerful tech companies through voluntary agreements and tax legislation.

    But the digital age has fundamentally changed national sovereignty – the right of individual countries to decide the rules within their own borders.

    Big tech companies are gradually taking on functions traditionally reserved for government institutions. For example, these companies have begun to function as the arbiters of speech, controlling the visibility of certain ideas and comments.

    As recently as this month, Meta obscured searches for left-leaning topics including “Democrats”, later blaming the issue on a “technical glitch”.

    And as was widely covered in the media, Amnesty International released a report claiming that Facebook’s algorithms “proactively amplified” anti-Rohingya content in Myanmar, substantially contributing to human rights violations against the ethnic group.

    New Zealand’s attempts to regulate big tech

    A number of governments are now facing the question of how to temper the influence of these companies within their current legal frameworks.

    As New Zealand (among others) has discovered in the past decade, influencing the behaviour of these companies is easier said than done. It has repeatedly found itself struggling to effectively manage big tech’s impact on its society and economy.

    In 2018, for example, New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner said Facebook had failed to comply with its obligations under the New Zealand Privacy Act. The company told the commission the Privacy Act did not apply to it.

    When the Christchurch terrorist attack was livestreamed on Facebook (owned by Meta), New Zealand authorities found themselves largely powerless to prevent the video’s spread across global platforms.

    This crisis prompted then-prime minister Jacinda Ardern to launch the Christchurch Call initiative aimed at combating online extremism by fostering collaboration between governments and tech companies.

    The goal was to develop and enforce measures such as improved content moderation, removal of extremist material, and the creation of safer online environments.

    While gaining support from more than 120 countries and tech companies, its effect depends on voluntary ongoing cooperation. Recent events suggest this ongoing cooperation is unlikely.

    In January, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced plans to get rid of content moderation in the US and possibly elsewhere. Zuckerberg has also pushed back against European Union regulations, claiming the EU’s data laws censored social media.

    Taxing big tech

    In 2019, New Zealand proposed a 3% digital tax on big tech revenue. A similar measure was introduced by France in 2020 and by Canada and Australia last year.

    While these proposals signify important steps toward holding big tech accountable, their implementation remains uncertain.

    Although the relevant tax provisions have been adopted in New Zealand, the law includes clauses allowing tax collections to be deferred until as late as 2030.

    Meanwhile, big tech continues to push back aggressively against regulation in various ways. These have included threatening reduced services (such as the brief closure of TikTok in the US) to leveraging their relationships with the Trump government against other countries.

    Using competition regulation to rein in big tech

    In December 2024, the Australian government unveiled draft legislation on big tech to level the playing field.

    The proposed law seeks to foster fair competition, prevent price gouging, and give smaller tech and news companies a chance to thrive in a landscape increasingly dominated by global giants.

    The legislation would grant the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the authority to investigate and penalise companies with fines of up to A$50 million for restricting competition.

    The targeted behaviour includes tactics such as restricting data transfers between platforms (for example, moving contacts or photos from iPhone to Android) and limiting third-party payment options in app stores.

    The proposed law aims to put an end to these unfair advantages, ensuring a level playing field where businesses of all sizes can compete and consumers have more choices.

    Democractic governance in the digital age

    The growing power of tech platforms raises critical questions about democratic governance in the digital age.

    There is an urgent need to reconcile the global influence of tech companies with local democratic processes and to create mechanisms that safeguard individual and national sovereignty in an increasingly digital world.

    Governments need to recognise these platforms are not immutable forces of nature, but human-created systems that can be challenged, reformed or dismantled. The same digital connectivity that has empowered these corporations can become the very tool of their transformation.

    Alexandra Andhov is conducting research on Big Tech Governance, funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark under the Inge Lehmann Programme. The author is grateful for this support and wishes to acknowledge that the research was conducted entirely independently.

    – ref. As the ‘digital oligarchy’ grows in power, NZ will struggle to regulate its global reach and influence – https://theconversation.com/as-the-digital-oligarchy-grows-in-power-nz-will-struggle-to-regulate-its-global-reach-and-influence-247899

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Scott Moe won in Saskatchewan promising economic prosperity, but does that truly help citizens?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Iryna Khovrenkov, Associate Professor, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina

    After winning the recent provincial election, the Saskatchewan Party’s Scott Moe promised a “strong economy, bright future.”

    But does a strong economy necessarily guarantee a bright future?

    Between 1998 and 2018, Saskatchewan’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 45 per cent, making it the fourth largest in Canada.

    Even after the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Saskatchewan led the nation in economic growth, registering a hike of six per cent.

    Over the same 20 years, however, Saskatchewan’s well-being increased by only 13 per cent, according to the Saskatchewan Index of Wellbeing.

    This lag in well-being has only amplified the struggles of the province’s citizens in terms of drug use, youth mental health, homelessness and hate crimes.

    Evidently, and despite its impressive magnitude, Saskatchewan’s economic growth alone does not fully reflect the province’s progress in terms of citizen well-being.

    What is well-being?

    Well-being is a multi-dimensional concept that goes beyond the level or rate of growth of GDP and can illuminate ongoing major policy challenges. GDP, on the other hand, is one-dimensional, developed prior to the Second World War and well before today’s significant policy concerns.

    As defined by the Saskatchewan Index of Wellbeing, it’s achieved when people are physically, emotionally and spiritually healthy; economically secure; have a strong sense of identity, belonging and place; and have the confidence and capacity to engage as citizens.

    Well-being encompasses many aspects that make our lives good — happiness and wellness at the personal level, strong social capital and belonging at the community level. These aspects can then form a strong foundation to tackle larger issues at the societal level such as social justice and environmental sustainability.

    International well-being initiatives

    Many countries, including Canada with its Canadian Index of Wellbeing, have not only developed well-being frameworks but many now routinely collect and publish well-being indicators.

    A handful of jurisdictions — like France, Italy and Sweden — have also begun including quality-of-life measures as benchmarks of their progress.

    New Zealand even formally budgets for well-being and released its first Wellbeing Budget in 2019.

    Regardless of geography or political structure, one common motivation for developing these well-being frameworks is a recognition that economic metrics such as GDP are insufficient to measure a country’s human and environmental progress.



    Read more:
    Australia’s wellbeing budget: what we can – and can’t – learn from NZ

    A well-being approach to policy

    For an effective path forward, citizen well-being should be a guiding principle for government leaders. Community Initiatives Fund and Heritage Saskatchewan, joint forces behind the Saskatchewan Index of Wellbeing, have long called on decision-makers to incorporate well-being into policy.

    The federal government has recently introduced the Quality-of-Life Framework as its first step towards integrating well-being into policymaking. But are these efforts reaching local governments, which carry a regulatory duty of fostering citizen well-being?

    I partnered with the Community Initiatives Fund and Heritage Saskatchewan to survey more than 25 per cent of rural and urban municipalities in Saskatchewan on what’s facilitated or hindered the adoption of well-being into policy in their communities.

    We learned that only 17 per cent of our participating municipalities adopted a well-being approach in their official community plans, although 55 per cent of them consider community well-being elements when developing policies and budgets.

    Additionally, 46 per cent are interested in adopting a well-being approach but have cited lack of financial and human resources, time, community and team support as key challenges in shifting to a well-being approach.

    Finally, we learned that arts, culture and sports amenities were identified as a pressing community need by 36 per cent of our respondents, compared to only six per cent referencing economic sustainability and growth.

    Our findings also support existing evidence that rural communities become stronger when they value well-being more than economic growth.

    The five elements of a well-being economy. (ICLEI Europe YouTube Channel)

    Municipal action required

    As the government level closest to the people, municipalities matter. Services provided by local authorities define citizens’ well-being and their quality of life. Also, local efforts have the potential to inspire province-wide change.

    With urban municipalities in Saskatchewan gearing up for their own elections on Nov. 13, it’s a good time to consider prioritizing community well-being.

    In the words of Jacinda Ardern, the former prime minister of New Zealand: “Growth alone does not lead to a great country …. so it’s time to focus on those things that do.”

    For real change to occur, well-being should lie at the heart of policymaking.

    The research project about well-being in municipal policy is a product of a partnership between Iryna Khovrenkov at the University of Regina, Tracey Mann at Community Initiatives Fund and Ingrid Cazakoff at Heritage Saskatchewan. The financial support of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Partnership Engage Grant number 892-2021-3028 is gratefully acknowledged.

    – ref. Scott Moe won in Saskatchewan promising economic prosperity, but does that truly help citizens? – https://theconversation.com/scott-moe-won-in-saskatchewan-promising-economic-prosperity-but-does-that-truly-help-citizens-242574

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Gender is playing a crucial role in this US election – and it’s not just about Kamala Harris

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carol Johnson, Emerita Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Adelaide

    Having a female presidential candidate has made gender obvious in this US presidential election, even to many who normally neglect its role. The specific contest between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, along with the prominence of issues such as abortion, has resulted in a particularly large gender voting gap. Far more women have consistently indicated support for Harris and far more men for Trump.

    However, gender has always been crucial in US presidential elections, not just because of gender voting patterns but because competing performances of masculinity have always played a major role.

    Role of masculinity in 2020 election

    The last presidential election saw Joe Biden’s form of kind and caring protective masculinity being explicitly contrasted with Trump’s divisive, hyper-masculine one.

    Furthermore, strong male leaders are meant to protect the people from physical, social and economic harm. I have argued that one factor that contributed to Trump’s 2020 electoral defeat was a protective masculinity failure, especially in regard to COVID.

    For example, former President Barack Obama argued that, unlike Biden, Trump could not be counted on to protect Americans:

    Eight months into this pandemic, new cases are breaking records. Donald Trump isn’t going to suddenly protect all of us. He can’t even take the basic steps to protect himself […]. Joe understands […] that the first job of a president is to keep us safe from all threats: domestic, foreign, and microscopic.

    Trump’s re-energised protective masculinity

    However, since his 2020 electoral defeat, Trump has resurrected himself as a strong masculine protector. He claims that “our enemies” are trying to use legal charges to take away his freedom and silence him because he “will always stand” in the way of their attempt to silence the American people and take away their freedom.

    He will also be a vengeful protector, declaring:

    I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed: I am your retribution. I will totally obliterate the deep state.

    Trump has long appealed to men who feel that traditional masculinity, and its related entitlements, are under threat.

    He is currently courting white males, the youth manosphere, “techno bros”, “crypto bros”, conservative male unionists threatened by globalisation and offshoring, and conservative black and Latino men.

    He has been explicitly mobilising misogyny, including by making lewd references to Harris. JD Vance has assisted Trump’s efforts.

    Nonetheless, Trump claims that he will be a strong male protector of women, protecting them from illegal immigrants, crime, foreign threats and other anxieties:

    You will be protected and I will be your protector. Women will be happy, healthy, confident and free.

    Trump has even promised that, as a result, women “will no longer be thinking about abortion.” This is all despite his own alleged history of sexual assault.

    Harris, gender and the women’s vote

    By 2024, Biden’s apparent physical and cognitive decline meant that he was no longer a convincing masculine protector (or viable ongoing presidential candidate).

    The choice of Harris as his replacement candidate had advantages, but it was also a gamble given the combined roles of gender and race. After all, despite the long history of US racism, it still proved easier to elect a black man (Obama) to the presidency than a white woman (Hillary Clinton).

    However, the women’s vote is particularly important this election. As well as Harris’ appeal to younger and black women, Democrats have emphasised the importance of her appeal to white women, including some who previously voted Republican. Anti-Trump Republicans such as Liz Cheney are assisting Harris in appealing to the latter.

    Issues such as abortion are crucial. The overturning of Roe v Wade abortion rights, enabled by Trump stacking the Supreme Court, also puts IVF at risk by not clarifying when life begins (with implications for frozen embryos). Senate Republicans have twice blocked a vote on a Democrat-led bill designed to protect IVF. Harris has pledged to sign a law protecting abortion rights (if Congress passes it).

    Trump claims he supports IVF, won’t bring in a national ban on abortion and believes in abortion “exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother”.

    However, Trump Republicans are courting, and influenced by, the American religious right on abortion. There aren’t such exceptions in several Republican states, as Harris’s heartrending accounts of the impact on women and their health reveals. Furthermore, Missouri, Kansas and Idaho are also trying to drastically reduce legal access to the abortion drug mifepristone.

    Harris also emphasises other issues of particular significance for women, such as affordable childcare and better pay for care workers.

    Harris and “tonic” masculinity

    Given the role of competing masculinities in US presidential elections, Harris’ campaign has intentionally appealed to a very different form of protective masculinity from Trump’s.

    Vice presidential candidate, Tim Walz’s, “America’s dad” image (of being a warm, caring but sports loving coach, national guard serving, gun owning, hunter) is used to contrast his “tonic masculinity” with Trump’s “toxic” masculinity. Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, is depicted as a supportive “wife-guy” who has “reshaped the perception of masculinity” (while strongly denying allegations he once slapped a woman).

    Despite conservative claims of men being economically left behind, the Biden/Harris administration argues it has revitalised manufacturing and male jobs along with it and Harris will continue to do so. Meanwhile, Obama has urged black men to get behind Harris and the Harris campaign has highlighted its policies benefiting black men.

    Can Harris mobilise protective femininity?

    Given the major role of gender in US presidential elections, a key issue is whether Harris can successfully evoke a caring, motherly, protective femininity that promises security and economic benefits to voters and helps to counter Trump’s protective masculinity.

    Other women politicians have been able to (for example, Germany’s Angela Merkel). Women leaders particularly mobilised protective femininity during the COVID health crisis (for example, New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern). However, it always seemed likely masculinist leadership stereotypes would re-emerge once the economy needed rebuilding after the pandemic.

    Harris has pledged she will “create an opportunity economy” and “protect our fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right of a woman to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do”. She promises to be the kind of president “who cares about you and is not putting themselves first”. Whether such electoral pitches are successful remains to be seen.

    Why the outcome of this election is crucial for gender equality.

    A woman US president is long overdue after 46 male ones. A Trump victory would have major implications for abortion, IVF and women’s rights generally, including progress on the Biden/Harris National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality. Immigrant and black women will be particularly vulnerable. A Trump victory would also have major implications for which models of masculinity are publicly endorsed.

    A Trump victory would embolden conservative so-called anti-gender ideology campaigns. The Trump campaign has recently spent US $21 million (A$31.9 million) on ads associating Harris with LGBTIQ+ equality, especially transgender rights.

    The Trump campaign asserts that “Kamala’s for they/them. President Trump is for you.” While Trump has also pledged that “we will get critical race theory and transgender insanity the hell out of our schools.”

    A Trump victory will influence the future US economy, including risking increasing gender inequality in an Elon Musk-style unregulated technopoly.

    Finally, academic commentators have drawn attention to the way in which socially conservative views on gender have been mobilised to support new forms of authoritarian regimes in Europe and elsewhere.

    In short, this presidential election is a crucial one for the American people generally, but for the female half of the population in particular.

    Carol Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Gender is playing a crucial role in this US election – and it’s not just about Kamala Harris – https://theconversation.com/gender-is-playing-a-crucial-role-in-this-us-election-and-its-not-just-about-kamala-harris-242113

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Challenging but rewarding Bachelor of Teaching (Primary) journey coming to an end for EIT student | EIT Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti

    Source: Eastern Institute of Technology – Tairāwhiti

    3 hours ago

    Lizzie Somerville has enjoyed studying for the Bachelor of Teaching (Primary) at EIT.

    A challenging but rewarding Bachelor of Teaching (Primary) journey is coming to an end for an EIT student as she finishes up the final weeks of her degree.

    Lizzie Somerville, 20, says that she has loved the degree, especially the placements with local schools, but there were also challenges like Covid-19, Cyclone Gabrielle and breaking a leg during rugby training that required her to have surgery.

    Lizzie, who comes from a sheep and beef farm near the small coastal community of Pongoroa in the Tararua District, says that although she is pākehā, she grew up in a te ao Māori world. She says that this saw her spend a lot of time at the local marae, Te Hika O Pāpauma.

    Lizzie was earmarked for success when she completed her schooling at Solway College in Masterton. Not only did she receive a Year 13 Scholarship to attend EIT, but she also won a Prime Minister’s Vocational Excellence Award from the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. This was a further scholarship that would help with her tertiary tuition.

    She says that she had not always wanted to be a teacher.

    “Originally I wanted to join the police service because I love helping people, but then in high school I worked with the juniors and did an environmental course and that led to me really wanting to  get into education. And I found that the EIT degree, because it’s so practical, was more appealing to me than going off to university.”

    “But it has definitely been a challenge because there was a lot of things happening in our first year with COVID where we had to be off campus and study online. And then in our second year we had Cyclone Gabrielle, which saw us having to study in different places. I also broke my leg last year, which saw me having to get around on a knee scooter.”

    “But it has been really rewarding. The lectures at EIT are small and close-knit. It’s a nice feeling being around everyone.”

    The high point of the degree for Lizzie has been spending two days per week each year at an EIT partnership school and then going on two five week placements to a school.

    In her first year she was placed at Frimley School in Hastings while her second year saw her at Ebbett Park School in Hastings and Arthur Miller School in Napier. This year her school was Reignier Catholic School in Napier, before doing her final placement at Ormond School in Gisborne, where her partner is from.

    Lizzie says that she has no hesitation in recommending that people study the Bachelor of Teaching (Primary) at EIT.

    “It’s not actually that big and scary. You feel so comfortable at EIT. And in regard to the teaching degree, it is so practical and it sets you up really well for wanting to get a teaching career because of how practical it is.”

    “You also get a lot of support on campus and from the school you are at.”

    Lizzie says that while she enjoys Hawke’s Bay, she is hoping to start her teaching career in the Gisborne region.

    Associate Professor Emily Nelson, Programme Coordinator for EIT’s Bachelor of Teaching (Primary), said: “In addition to being a fully committed Candidate Teacher over the three years of her study, Lizzie has served as a Candidate Teacher Rep, taking on a leadership role for her cohort with the degree teaching team.”

    “This leadership experience as well as the resilience she has gained from studying through adversity, and her calm and caring personality, makes me really excited for her future in the teaching profession.”

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Local News – Have a sweet time in Porirua

    Source: Porirua City Council

    Porirua’s ChoctoberFest is back for its third year, with 20 cafés across the city serving up unique creations throughout October, all featuring iconic Whittaker’s chocolate.
    For the whole month, 19 Porirua cafés will be offering unique chocolate drinks, vying for the title of Top of the Chocs, and from 1 to 13 October there will be 10 delicious baked treats available as part of the Whittaker’s Bake Off.
    Porirua Mayor Anita Baker says having the support of Whittaker’s is great for the city.
    “We know how much Kiwis love Whittaker’s chocolate and to have it made on our doorstep here in Porirua is something we’re really proud of.
    “We’ve also got some amazing hospitality outlets and we know it’s a tough time for that industry. So ChoctoberFest is a great way to get behind local businesses and show some support, while enjoying something delicious,” she says.
    Whittaker’s CEO James Ardern says the company is proud to have been making chocolate in Porirua for more than 50 years.
    “The annual ChoctoberFest is always a great opportunity to celebrate that, and we are delighted to be part of it again this year.
    “We look forward to seeing how local businesses get creative with chocolate, and to sampling what’s on offer throughout the month.”
    With hot and cold drinks, imaginative baked creations, vegan options, gluten free choices and even cocktails, there should be something for almost everyone.
    Once you’ve tasted, you can vote for your favourites to help decide who comes out on top.
    There are amazing prizes up for grabs, including a Whittaker’s factory tour, invites to an exclusive Whittaker’s event at Kai Tahi, café vouchers, and a year’s supply (52 blocks) of chocolate.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Universities – Early dingoes are related to dogs from New Guinea and East Asia – University of Sydney

    Source: University of Sydney

    Australian dingo has evolved over 3,000 years to become larger and leaner – New archaeological research by the University of Sydney has discovered for the first time clear links between fossils of the iconic Australian dingo, and dogs from East Asia and New Guinea.

    The remarkable findings suggest that the dingo came from East Asia via Melanesia, and challenges previous claims that it derived from pariah dogs of India or Thailand. 

    Previous studies used traditional morphometric analysis – which looks at the size and shape of the animal using callipers – to trace the dingo’s ancestry to South Asia.  

    However, the new study, published in Nature Scientific Reports, uses sophisticated 3D scanning and geometric morphometrics on ancient dingo specimens to show clearly that they are most similar to Japanese dogs, as well as the ‘singing dogs’ of New Guinea and the highland wild dog of Irian Jaya.
     
    Dr Loukas Koungoulos, a research associate in the Discipline of Archaeology at the University of Sydney, said: “The origins of this controversial Australian native animal have been heavily debated for more than a century. Our research has found the elusive first links between fossil material that suggest dingoes have evolved locally from an East Asian dog-like ancestor.”

    Dr Koungoulos added: “The archaeological sites at Lake Mungo and Lake Milkengay hold some of the oldest evidence of dingoes in the whole of Australia. It is incredible to see how these remarkable animals have evolved over thousands of years and gives us a greater understanding of this uniquely Australian species.”  

    The study team – which included Associate Professor Melanie Fillios from the University of New England and Dr Ardern Hulme-Beaman from the University of Liverpool – looked at the remains of ancient dingoes found at Lake Mungo and Lake Milkengay in western NSW.

    Associate Professor Melanie Fillios said: “Our research underscores the antiquity of dingoes, pointing to a common ancestor between dingoes and the more recent canines in Southeast Asia.”

    In collaboration with the Willandra Lakes Region World Heritage Area Traditional Owners, the team used radiocarbon dating to discover that some remains were over 3,000 years old.

    The team also found that modern-day dingoes have evolved to become larger and leaner, standing at an average of 54cm tall compared to between 40-47cm for their ancient ancestors – a size much closer to their contemporary relatives in Southeast Asia and Melanesia.  

    RESEARCH

    Koungoulos, Loukas G. et al ‘Phenotypic diversity in early Australian dingoes revealed by traditional and 3D geometric morphometric analysis’. (Natural Scientific Reports)  

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65729-3

    DECLARATION

    Research funding was received from the Australian Government Research Training Partnership, the Carlyle-Greenwell Postgraduate Scholarship and the Ben Sandford Cullen Award.

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –