The NZCTU has launched a fundraiser for those wanting to contribute to their election campaign. Since launching their campaign on Monday, the NZCTU has been inundated with support from members of the public who are concerned by what’s at stake this election.
“We’ve heard the requests from many corners asking for a way to contribute to the campaign to ensure as many people see it as possible” said President Richard Wagstaff. “We’ve been delighted by the positive reception to the ad – someone even framed the Herald cover page, they liked it so much!”
“We’ve got real momentum here and we want to keep it going. We’re grateful to everyone who is helping out with donations and sharing posts online.”
“We know Christopher Luxon is out of touch and too much risk for New Zealand in a cost-of-living crisis, clearly a lot of New Zealanders agree with us.”
Ad attacking Luxon is OK, meanwhile an ad promoting women is banned
Family First CEO Bob McCoskrie is stunned that an ‘attack’ advertisement on National leader Christopher Luxon by a union has been allowed to be printed in the NZ Herald as a full wrap-around on the front page, yet an advertisement recently requested by Family First to be printed and asking for a debate around the definition of ‘woman’ and its implication in public policy was cancelled.
“It’s outrageous because the union attack is an unsubstantiated ad hominen personal attack. And secondly, it is designed to pass of as a news headline which will confuse some people. Our advertisement was simply calling for a debate and was within the newspaper and was clearly an advertisement with clear identification of who was publishing it.”
This questionable behaviour of the media (on what it chooses to print or not print) is troubling, especially leading into Election 2023.
“It appears that the media and advertising agents are acting as judge and jury on what the public can see and hear. Where does this place their coverage of the political debate leading up to the General Election. What else are they censoring?”
“Most importantly, are these actions of the legacy media spelling the end of independent civil discourse on controversial social issues?”
At the beginning of July, in a disturbing display of media censorship, the major daily newspapers (NZ Herald, Stuff (The Post and Christchurch Press) and the Otago Daily Times appeared to band together to pull the publication of our full page advertisement at the 11th hour. The advertisement was part of a nationwide campaign asking the simple question “What is a woman?”
Bob McCoskrie is calling on a formal inquiry into the increasing and disturbing level of bias and censorship which is seeping into our media.
A poll has found that just 16% of New Zealanders oppose bringing back the ‘Three Strikes’ law which was recently repealed by the Labour Government with the support of the Greens and Te Pati Maori.
The nationwide poll of 1,000 New Zealanders was commissioned by Family First NZ and carried out by Curia Market Research. Respondents were asked “Since 2010, New Zealand has had a ‘Three Strikes’ sentencing law for serious violent and sexual offenders who continue to commit offences. This law removed parole eligibility for repeat offenders and imposes the maximum prison term available for the offence committed, for those who offend a third or subsequent time. The law was repealed last year. Do you support or oppose bringing back the Three Strikes Law?”
Only 16% oppose bringing back the law (down from 25% in a similar poll of respondents in 2021).
Two in three Kiwis (65%) support the reinstatement of the law (up from 44% in 2021) and 19% are unsure (down from 31% unsure in 2021).
Support for the law was relatively even across gender and age.
National (72%), Labour (63%), NZ First (93%) and ACT (90%) voters were strongly supportive, and even Green voters were more in support (41%) than opposed (39%). Net support for the law to remain is: National voters +57 (up from +45% in 2022), ACT +85% (up from +40%), Labour +46 (up from +17%) and Greens +2 (down from +7%).
Ironically, the then-Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi when introducing the bill to scrap the law said “the public don’t like this law”.
In a 2018 report, Justice Department officials admitted that “…in comparison with second strikeable offences committed before the law came into effect there has been a drop in the number of second strike offences since the laws implementation.”
“The Labour government had no public mandate for scrapping it, and the evidence suggests that the law was having the desired effect. There had been a dramatic drop from the number of 1st strikes to 2nd strikes and then again to a third strike. Criminals aren’t stupid. They are well aware of the law and its consequences. When the regime was scrapped, the government sent a message that we’re not serious about the It’s Not OK zero-tolerance message on family violence, or zero tolerance on gun violence or sexual violence, in fact violence in general. The Three Strikes law reinforces that we take victimisations seriously,” says Bob McCoskrie, CEO of Family First NZ.
An Official Information Act request at the end of 2018 said that for 2nd and 3rd strikers:
they had an average of 42 convictions as an adult. For 3rd strikers, it’s an average of 74 convictions
91% were assessed as being at a high risk of reoffending
56% committed their 2nd strike on bail or parole or while serving a sentence.
40% have a “strike type” conviction from prior to the three strikes regime
“This data indicates that the three strikes regime was accurately targeting the serious recidivist offenders, and that is why there has been such a strong surge of support for the law since we last polled on this issue.”
The nationwide poll was carried out at the end of August and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has launched its 2023 election campaign focused on why a National-led government will leave working people worse off.
“Christopher Luxon and National will take New Zealand backwards and working people will be the first to feel the pain,” said NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff.
“The buck stops with Christopher Luxon. He’s the leader, these are his policies. People need to take notice of that.
“We are running a strong, evidence-based campaign which sets out why Christopher Luxon and National are out of touch with what matters to the lives of working people – and out of touch with the challenges New Zealand faces.
“It’s not just us. A Newshub poll in May found nearly half of New Zealanders thought he was out of touch.
“Anyone who thinks the answer is a $10 per week tax cut for someone on the minimum wage, and savage cuts to public services, has to be seriously out of touch.”
The NZCTU said the campaign would focus on the clear evidence of what National is promising:
Fair Pay Agreements would be abolished – these provide minimum protections for workers and prevent the race to the bottom, by cutting the wages of the most vulnerable workers.
Minimum wage rises would be restrained – National promises to raise the minimum wage every year, but we know National’s track record is poor. Under the current government minimum wages rises have increased the fortnightly income of those workers by $556 since 2017.
Tax breaks for landlords and speculators would make a comeback – these fuel the property market and simply enrich property investors, making it harder to buy a first home and pushing up rents.
Public transport costs for many low-paid workers would rise, along with prescription charges.
Welfare payments would be pegged to CPI inflation, meaning that many of the lowest-income New Zealanders will fall further behind.
The public service would be gutted – National would cut $8.5 billion of spending and savage frontline services up and down the country. Services working people depend on, and jobs that employ union members.
Climate Emergency Response Fund would be axed – $2.4 billion dollars committed to reducing our climate emissions to fund National’s landlord tax breaks. This will undermine New Zealand’s ability to tackle our climate crisis.
“National’s plan under Christopher Luxon is short-sighted, it is not good economic management,” said Wagstaff.
“October’s election is the most significant election for working people in a generation. It’s essential that going into this election, people understand what is at risk for not just working people, but all New Zealanders.”
A new nationwide poll has found significant opposition to gender ideology overall, but especially in schools and in women’s sports. The poll has also found support for a ban on the use of ‘gender affirmation’ chemical & surgical treatment for under-18s.
SUPPORT FOR BAN ON ‘GENDER AFFIRMING’ TREATMENT FOR UNDER-18’s A new poll has found that while there is disagreement as to whether gender & sexuality ideology should be taught or banned in primary schools, there is increasing opposition to gender ideology being taught to young children.
The poll has also found support for a ban on the use of ‘gender affirmation’ chemical & surgical treatment for under-18s, and growing support for sports to be based on biological sex, not gender identity.
In the poll of 1,000 New Zealanders commissioned by Family First and surveyed by Curia Market Research, respondents were asked a number of questions around gender ideology and the Relationship and Sexuality curriculum being taught in schools.
GENDER IDEOLOGY IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS
Only 1 in 10 (10%) think primary age children should be taught they can choose their gender and that it can be changed through hormone treatment and surgery if they want it to be, while three out of four (76%) say they shouldn’t. 14% are unsure or refused to respond.
Opposition to gender ideology in primary schools has grown significantly compared to a similar poll in 2018 where 54% said children should not be taught this, and 35% said they should. That means that support for ‘gender separate from sex’ ideology being taught to primary age children has dropped significantly from 1 in 3 (35%) to just 1 in 10 (10%) in less than five years.
BAN ON PUBERTY BLOCKERS & OTHER ‘GENDER AFFIRMATION’ TREATMENT
The respondents were also asked whether they would support or oppose a ban on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and physical sex-change surgeries for children under the age of 18 who identify as transgender.
54% support a ban on ‘gender affirmation’ treatment for under 18s (up from 51% in 2020) and just 27% disagree (similar to 28% in 2020). 19% were unsure.
Only Green voters were more opposed than supportive. Interestingly, 53% of the younger age group (18-40) were supportive of a ban with only 29% opposing.
SPORTS PARTICIPATION
In terms of sports participation, just 13% of respondents think boys who identify as girls should be allowed automatic access to girls sports teams (dropping significantly from 39% similar poll in 2018 and two in three (68%) disagree (rising significantly from 39% in 2018).
“This polling confirms that the majority of New Zealanders are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the gender ideology curriculum and agenda being rammed down in some schools. It fails to take into account the emotional and physical development of each child and more importantly the values of the families,” says Bob McCoskrie, CEO of Family First NZ.
“There is also considerable anger and disbelief that parents can be kept out of the loop on all of this, and that a child’s social transitioning may be facilitated by the school without parents being informed.”
Family First is calling on the Ministry of Health to ban gender affirmation treatment for under 18s, and to remove gender ideology from the RSE curriculum.
The nationwide poll was carried out at the end of August and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
Teacher Not Using Preferred Pronouns Shouldn’t Be Deregistered – Poll
A new nationwide poll has found significant opposition to a decision which resulted in a teacher losing his teaching licence for refusing to recognise a student’s gender ‘identity’ and using the students preferred pronouns.
A high school math teacher had his teaching registration cancelled after he refused to use the preferred pronouns and name for a 14-year-old student who was in the process of ‘transitioning’ from a biological girl to a boy.
In the poll of 1,000 New Zealanders commissioned by Family First NZ and carried out by Curia Market Research, respondents were asked “Should a teacher lose their teaching licencefor misgendering a trans student (refusing to use their preferred pronoun or recognise their gender identity)?”
Only16% of respondents said yes. Two in three Kiwis (65%) said the teacher shouldn’t lose their licence, and a further 19% were unsure.
Support for the teacher was strong amongst National (69%), ACT (76%) Labour (61%) and NZ First (70%) voters (based on 2020 vote), and even Green voters gave majority support (52%),
“It appears that the Teaching Council failed to ‘read the room’ when it recently cancelled the licence of the math teacher for this exact ‘crime’. The decision effectively told Kiwi teachers that if they aren’t willing to tell a biological lie and fully endorse gender ideology, then they’re not fit to be a teacher,” says Bob McCoskrie.
Current legislation does not address specific issues around names and pronouns, but the Ministry of Education recently commissioned so-called ‘guidelines’ from radical gender activist group InsideOut which claimed that using a person’s chosen name and pronouns was about respecting their right to self-determination. Fortunately the ‘guidelines’ are not mandatory – and were also not legally accurate .
This polling reveals that the majority of New Zealanders are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the gender ideology curriculum and agenda being rammed down in some schools, its effect on the teaching profession, and the coercion it’s placing on teaching professionals to tell a biological lie.
“When teachers are mandated to tell biological lies or lose their careers because of a flawed and harmful ideology which involves chemicalising and castrating vulnerable young people, then you know we’re in a really dangerous place. It is not loving to affirm a lie.”
“There is also considerable community and parental angst that parents can be kept out of the loop on all of this, and that a child’s social transitioning may be facilitated by the school without parents being informed.”
In comparison, these teachers can continue to teach:
A Teacher was censured after assaulting his daughter – but kept registration. He wrapped his hands around his teenage daughter’s neck, shook her “vigorously” and threatened to kill her after discovering the nature of her sexual activity. But can still teach.
Preschool teacher drove to work drunk. She had had three drink-driving criminal prosecutions and one previous tribunal decision relating to alcohol use. But can still teach.
A Whakatāne teacher was censured for serious misconduct after forcing students at a school camp to strip to their underwear and stand with their noses against a tree. But can still teach.
A teacher was a convicted drug cultivator, failed to comply with conditions placed on her during disciplinary proceedings in 2013, and failed to tell the Teaching Council about the criminal charge. But can still teach
A Christchurch teacher was found guilty of serious misconduct after making inappropriate and offensive comments on a podcast about students, a former girlfriend, his sex life and going to work “slightly high on drugs”. Still able to teach.
A teacher tried to hire a gang member to assault her principal. The teacher also fabricated grades for work not done by students, forged the head of department’s signature, and lied about what classes she had taught. The teacher feared she was going to be fired and so hatched a plan for one of her students’ grandfathers to threaten the principal. The teacher told a colleague she had arranged for the principal to be “capped”. Despite her “unprofessional” actions and “serious misconduct”, the Teachers’ Council gave the teacher permission to return to the classroom.
The nationwide poll was carried out 22/23 August and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
The tax plan set out by National is propped up with questionable assumptions and untested numbers, say the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.
NZCTU Economist Craig Renney said the plan has generated many more questions than it answers.
“According to their plan, they will generate $3 billion from foreign buyers, $716 million from foreign casino operators.
“There is no evidence that these numbers are possible, nor how they will be delivered. That is up to $3.6 billion that will need to be found from even deeper cuts to public services.
National also wants to cut spending on items such as free prescriptions, public transport support, and income support for those on the very lowest incomes.
This tax package cuts $2.3 billion of spending on tackling climate change – which protects jobs, incomes, and communities – and then gives $2.3 billion to landlords in tax advantages.
“This shows how out of touch National is on the issues that matter to New Zealanders,” said Renney.
According to IRD, 2.3 million New Zealanders earned less than $44,000 a year, meaning that they will be getting $2.15 a week from this package.
“That’s 56% of all income taxpayers. For them, this is not cost of living support it’s an insult. Meanwhile, those who own multiple homes will be in for billions of dollars of government support.
“There is nothing in this package that supports sustainable economic growth, helps to grow jobs, and there is a real risk that it will simply stoke further inflation and housing speculation.
“We still haven’t seen Nationals plan for how it will fund schools and hospitals. How it will lift children out of poverty. How it will build additional housing for those in need.
“This tax package simply adds more questions on top. It’s not clear the numbers add up, and it’s not clear that National shares New Zealanders priorities.”
Unions across the country have slammed the National Party’s proposal to reintroduce 90-day trials, and say it would undermine fundamental workplace rights in New Zealand.
NZ Council of Trade Unions President Richard Wagstaff said 90-day trials were outdated, ineffective, and lazy policy.
“Getting ‘back on track’ as National puts it, clearly means a return to policies that are bad for working people.
“90-day trials are not a mechanism to make hiring workers easier. They only make it easier for businesses to fire them.”
Trial periods have proven to be ineffective. Treasury funded research found no evidence that the ability to use trial periods significantly increased firms’ overall hiring.
Additionally, there was no evidence that the policy substantially increased short-term hiring.
The study did find that many employees faced increased uncertainty about their job security in the months after their hiring.
Unite National Secretary John Crocker said the policy would disproportionately impact workers that were young and on low incomes.
“This policy would disadvantage vulnerable workers, like young people or those just entering the workforce, while allowing bad employers to fire people with impunity.
“Workers can already be fired – but it has to be done fairly and reasonably. National’s proposal is to protect unfair and unreasonable employers from any consequences.”
E tū Director Sarah Thompson dismissed the policy as anti-evidence and anti-worker.
“During a cost-of-living crisis, workers and our families need better pay, conditions, and job security – things National seems dead set on eroding through talk of 90-day trials, and the repeal of Fair Pay Agreements.”
“This is a failed policy from the past that exists solely to seduce the National Party’s business donors,” said Dennis Maga, FIRST Union General Secretary. “This would make life worse in New Zealand for anyone who doesn’t already run a very large and exploitative business.”
JOIN MEDIA RELEASE: FIRST Union, NZCTU and ActionStation
A new report released today by FIRST Union, NZ Council of Trade Unions and Action Station argues that rising profits – not wages – have been the primary driver of domestic inflation during the cost-of-living crisis.
“This report reveals that from mid-2021 to the end of 2022, rising profits contributed more than half of domestic inflationary pressure, while labour costs accounted for less than a third”, said FIRST Union Researcher and Policy Analyst Edward Miller.
“Many communities that are enduring rising prices while businesses post record profits have reached the same conclusion. They know that they are also on the receiving end of an inflation policy response that disproportionately impacts the poor and vulnerable”, said Miller.
Profit-led inflation in Aotearoa uses the same methodology as reports by the OECD, European Central Bank and the Australia Institute to decompose the profit and labour contributions to domestic inflationary pressure. Sector- and firm-level data provide further insight into how rising profits have fed into prices, looking at food, transport and housing.
“Over the past year, inflation has been the grand excuse for anyone to wield at their disposal. It provides cover for business owners to push up prices while withholding wage rises. It has been sharpened as a weapon for political gain by parties wanting to shrink government and the public sector. All of this has distracted us from the big businesses driving inflation,” said Kassie Hartendorp, Director of ActionStation.
“While our communities have been struggling from rising prices for the basics, big business has been shamelessly profiting off customers’ misery. This report shows that our largest corporations have been driving inflation at a time when people are struggling the most. We need policies that will address the root of the problem and ease the pressure for all of us,” said Kassie Hartendorp.
“These findings should open new discussions about the appropriate policy responses for reducing inflationary pressures. We need to tackle inflation in both the short and the long-run, and to make sure that the costs of our inflation response are falling on those who have benefitted the most over the past few years”, said CTU Policy Director Craig Renney.
“In the long-term, inflation reduction requires investment in those things that will make a consistent difference. We need to tackle rents, energy and transport costs, and to make sure that Kiwis have access to high quality public services. Doing this will not only reduce inflation, it will create the more productive and sustainable future”.
More needs to be done to protect people who work with engineered stone. Workers in these industries are being exposed to highly hazardous silica dust and fears remain for their health and safety.
This week NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff joined Kathryn Ryan on RNZ’s Nine to Noon to discuss the issue. Also on the segment was Professor Lin Fritschi, a cancer epidemiologist specialising in occupational causes of cancer:
The issue
Engineered stone is a man-made artificial product that combines crystallised silica and other materials with resin. The silica dust created from cutting, drilling or grinding these materials is extremely hazardous.
Exposure to silica dust can cause silicosis (scarring of the lungs), lung cancer and auto-immune disease. These diseases are incurable and can be fatal.
A 2021 Australian National Dust Disease Taskforce report found nearly one in four workers exposed to silica dust from engineered stone before 2018 have been diagnosed with silicosis.
Call to action
While silicosis and other diseases caused by silica dust exposure are incurable, they are preventable.
The NZCTU is working with a growing number of unions, academics, and health and safety professionals calling for a ban on engineered stone. Established health and safety principles tell us to eliminate risks whenever possible as a first option – this option is available.
“It’s simple 101 health and safety if you don’t need to do it, then stop doing it”
— NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff
The growing evidence of the harm caused by exposure, and the fact that WorkSafe is having to up enforcement pressure on businesses to manage the risks properly, shows that a ban on all engineered stone products is necessary (with the only exemption for managing or removing engineered stone already in place).
Engineered stone benchtops are a cosmetic choice, and many safe alternatives exist. We can protect workers from life-altering illness by banning this material.
