Labour’s Women’s Manifesto

65 comments on “Labour’s Women’s Manifesto ”

• Comment on post

1. Roy Cartland 1

   18 September 2023 at 12:18 pm

   This is such a relief to read, thanks Weka. Being such an (unnecessarily) controversial subject, an unheralded, understated reclamation of the language might just resolve the current mess.

   Like Māori language advancement, which was a slow grind that became a juggernaut.

   Reply
2. Mr Nobody 2

   18 September 2023 at 12:22 pm

   Can Chris Hipkins and this government define what a woman is yet or do we still face this fiasco?

   Reply
   • Roy Cartland 2.1

     18 September 2023 at 12:27 pm

     Ugh, yes, that was a massive embarrassment. But Chippy it's not TLP, thank goodness.

     Reply
     • Mr Nobody 2.1.1

       18 September 2023 at 12:55 pm

       So can the Labour Party define what a woman is?

       Reply
       • observer 2.1.1.1

         18 September 2023 at 1:12 pm

         Somebody hated by protesters who wanted to put her on trial? Somebody called every misogynist name under the sun? Somebody who aroused deranged frothing simpy by existing?

         Your memory may be short. But we haven't all forgotten.

         Reply
   • Anker 2.2

     18 September 2023 at 1:01 pm

     Yes they brought in law to say that anybody who feels like a women is a women. That is Labours true definition of what a women is.

     [please support your first sentence with evidence: an explanation from you, relevant quotes of specific clauses, and links including to the legislation you are referring to. You are in premod, please do this before commenting again. The debate standard on this topic needs to be particularly high during an election, and I think your statement here is misleading – weka]

     Reply
     • weka 2.2.1

       18 September 2023 at 1:42 pm

       mod note.

       Reply
     • Anker 2.2.2

       18 September 2023 at 5:31 pm

       Sorry Weka. But I think I will pass on that. Feel free to delete my comment if you like.

       [your other comments have gone into trash. I’m not deleting this one because I want to address it (see below). Also, 1 day ban for wasting my time as a moderator and treating moderation as optional (it’s not). I’d like to see the standard of debate lifted on this topic especially. If you want to make claims of fact going forward, please provide evidence at the time you make the claim. Or figure out other ways to express your opinion that don’t mislead the debate. thanks. – weka]

       Reply
       • Anker 2.2.2.1

         20 September 2023 at 12:58 pm

         I think my ban is over now.

         I sincerely apolgise for any extra word my comment caused you.

         I of course can't provide a link to my statement because how I worded my comment is not how it is worded in law.

         I understand you want people to be careful with their language on this subject and respect that.

         Reply
         • weka 2.2.2.1.1

           20 September 2023 at 2:16 pm

           Thanks Anker, I appreciate you coming back and saying that, it does make a big difference.

           Reply
     • weka 2.2.3

       18 September 2023 at 6:13 pm

       Yes they brought in law to say that anybody who feels like a women is a women.

       Here's my problem with this comment. At some point (in the 90s?) a government introduced legislation that allowed trans people to change the sex marker on their birth certificate. I don't know which government that was (but it if was the 90s, most likely it was National). The process was outlined in law (who had to give approval, what the trans person had to do in order to be allowed to do this).

       This year and amendment was made to the BDMRR act to simplify that process for trans people. ie way less hoops to jump through, they could essentially self-ID.

       It's not true that the legislation says that anybody who feels like a woman is a woman. The amendment referred to BCs only, and I'm unclear what a BC is even for these days. Trans people were already allowed to change the sex marker on their passport and drivers licence.

       The issue with self-ID is that it is a big cultural change, across many aspects of society, and it has some support in legislation, but more in policy (government, NGO and private business). This impacts on women negatively in a range of ways, it's been brought in with little public debate, and the change has happened fast and in some cases surreptitiously. In addition to that, the intentional adoption of No Debate by activists has hampered any meaningful discussion about the rights of women and children.

       I am pointing this out for a number of reasons.

       Primarily, I want the debate on TS to be of a higher standard then is sometimes happening. It's not enough to post sound bite reckons on something so important.

       It's also unfair on trans people to have the legal situation misrepresented.

       In an election year, for obvious reasons, facts matter. If we think it's ok to mislead about what legislation a political party is responsible for, how does that make us any different from the right, or from the disinformation crowd?

       And lastly, it serves women badly to have a low standard of debate on this. Not only does overstating the case make it harder to address actual issues, it also creates an atmosphere of inflammatory rhetoric that if left to run its course turns into some of the worst politics we are seeing at this time (and there is some fierce competition). Twitter is a the antithesis of here, and shows just how bad this debate can get when we rely on rhetoric and reaction. It's fine to feel strongly about this (I do), but we still have to be able to make coherent and meaningful arguments.

       Reply
       • Molly 2.2.3.1

         19 September 2023 at 9:39 am

         Might also help to distinguish between transsexuals and the current (growing) iterations of 'trans'.

         Completely different demographics.

         Reply
3. SPC 3

   18 September 2023 at 1:02 pm

   Implement a national endometriosis action plan

   130,000 women

   The problem is it takes minor surgery to confirm a diagnosis and if so there is an effort to remove the problem then and there. It requires the capacity we do not have to act (in all cases) and till now those with other conditions have been catered to instead with the scarce surgical capacity (apart from those who are persist). It appears they have used uncertainty over diagnosis to get away with this.

   One would presume they would research such as genetic indicators (it's more common if relatives also have it).

   Information here

   https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/10857-endometriosis

   Reply
   • Anker 3.1

     18 September 2023 at 1:16 pm

     Will there be enough health professionals to provide this service?

     Reply
     • SPC 3.1.1

       18 September 2023 at 1:39 pm

       This is more about a re-balancing of priorities to have this particular condition better managed.

       Our health system has not listened to women when they’ve asked for
       help. On average, women visit the doctor five times over eight years from the start of their symptoms before they receive a diagnosis

       The short answer is yes because its now policy not to deflect, and no because the whole system is under stress. Those with the condition will get better (not optimal) care just as others do in a system under global, and not just local, medical staff shortages.

       More local training, more retention (for mine no repaymnent of TL debt while working here), better offshore recruitment etc.

       Reply
     • observer 3.1.2

       18 September 2023 at 1:48 pm

       You want to bring in a government that will invest less (in real terms) than the current inadequate funding.

       You can't keep saying "change" while refusing to face up to what that change will mean.

       https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/article/undoctored/watch-out-new-zealand-cuts-health-spending-coming-under-national-led-government

       Reply
4. Anker 4

   18 September 2023 at 1:10 pm

   The really big problem I have with Labour and their women's manifesto is now it is coming around to the election and they are wanting your vote, they will bring in what is basically a pretty good policy (although it begs the questions why not six years ago).

   But this just makes me think what hypocrites they are (and I could say a lot worse).

   Labour politicians on the select committee of both the BMDRR bill and the Conversion Practices bill treated gender critical feminists with complete contempt and I believe you know this Weka. Deborah Russell, Ginny Anderson, Louisa Wall, Emily Henderson etc.

   They were disgusting towards these women. It is unforgivable.

   And Grant Robertson Minister of Sports who says that women who object to trans women (men) in womens sports are being petty and small minded.

   And the Wellington Central Labour candidate Mr Omer put pressure on the Mt Vics residents association to not ask questions about trans women in women's sport, so the questions never got asked.

   And Kiri Allen when she was Minister of Justice said the protesters should make a lot of noise to shut don't Posie Parker and the Let Women Speak rally.

   So no. This policy is bullshit. They are not being honest about what will happen if they get back in which will be more of the same i.e. silencing and smearing women with gender critical views and gender ideology will continue to pervade policy and law.

   A big no thank you from me.

   ps National brought in a private members bill to increase the age of breast screening in April of this year.

   Reply
   • Anker 4.1

     18 September 2023 at 1:14 pm

     https://www.speakupforwomen.nz/post/media-release-wellington-central-candidates-censor-free-speech

     Labour candidate for Wellington central caught red handed censoring gender critical questions at election debate

     Sorry I meant to post this link to my comment above but for some reason was not given a chance to edit.

     However this press release is worthy of its own comment.

     This is what Labour is really about when it comes to women. I am not fooled by this "women's manifesto. This shows their true colours.

     Reply
     • Mr Nobody 4.1.1

       18 September 2023 at 1:40 pm

       How frightening to see Labour candidates trying to censor public debate on what is a arguably a significant issue.

       If Labour can't define what a woman is how can it adequately target polices to improve their lives and benefit them?

       Reply
       • weka 4.1.1.1

         18 September 2023 at 2:20 pm

         If Labour can't define what a woman is how can it adequately target polices to improve their lives and benefit them?

         Patently they do know what a woman is, they just released a whole manifesto of policies specifically for women.

         I'm well versed in the issues around self ID and women's sex based rights, and there are obvious issues with Labour on that. But it's disingenuous to suggest that people who support self ID are somehow not able to work on women's issues or develop policy for women.

         If you want to make an argument about the post, you are welcome to do that, but please don't use my post to run superficial slogans.

         Reply
         • Mr Nobody 4.1.1.1.1

           18 September 2023 at 3:05 pm

           Patently they do know what a woman is, they just released a whole manifesto of policies specifically for women.

           Excellent, can you please direct me to their definition of what a woman is then? I would consider it fairly simple seeing Labour have a whole manifesto about woman or is a woman simply anybodybwho declares themselves to be one?

           [don’t grandstand under my posts. I’m a gender critical feminist with a far better understanding of the issues than you. I’m not going to let the debate be degraded by this kind of stupid gotcha politics, so stay out of this post for the rest of the day. – weka]

           Reply
           • observer 4.1.1.1.1.1

             18 September 2023 at 3:10 pm

             Please stop pretending to be so very concerned about women's rights. You're fooling nobody.

             You don't even think a mother can cope with being a PM … she's just a silly little woman:

             Open Mike 19/09/2018 « The Standard

             Reply
             • Mr Nobody …

               18 September 2023 at 3:29 pm

               As a Father with 3 Daughters I am genuinely very concerned with woman's rights and it is offensive that just because I have opinion which differs from your own that it is some how dishonest, false or less valid.

               I firmly believe that Females deserve to be safe and able to achieve and compete in fair and open competition. I do not believe that Woman should be forced to try and have compete against physiological men pretending to be woman in sports or share changing rooms or prisons etc with them.

               Reply
               • observer …

                 18 September 2023 at 3:57 pm

                 Nice bluster.

                 You should probably know that all your previous comments here are available to read. They were not about women's rights. They are just attacks on the government and PM(s), for any pretext.

                 We lived through 5 years of misogynistic abuse of NZ's most prominent woman and your "concern" was … entirely absent.

                 Reply
                 • Mr Nobody …

                   19 September 2023 at 7:50 am

                   You should probably know that all your previous comments here are available to read.

                   I'm well aware of it and still stand by the comment your have referred to (happy to review any others you may like to point to). That particular comment was made in regards to a general discussion on The Prime Ministers poor performance during an interview and made in reference to her preference for soft interviews with friendly reporters and if she wanted to avoid the perceptios of struggling with her role as PM and motherhood.

                   Considering subsequently to that comment she went onto stop being interviewed by NZ's most popular radio news show and resigned it would seem the rumors and perception were 100% correct.

                   Reply
           • weka 4.1.1.1.1.2

             18 September 2023 at 4:50 pm

             mod note

             Reply
           • Mr Nobody 4.1.1.1.1.3

             19 September 2023 at 7:41 am

             I’m a gender critical feminist with a far better understanding of the issues than you.

             You may be the Queen of Sheba for all it matters but the fact that you prefer to ban and avoid vs discuss and debate says more about your inability to make a coherent argument in support of your position.

             The simple facts are that:

             The current Labour Prime Minister has been incapable of defining what a woman is and now the party he represents has released a manifesto of policy's for a group of people called woman to which I would like a clear definition of who these people.

             Reply
     • lprent 4.1.2

       18 September 2023 at 2:16 pm

       How frightening to see Labour candidates trying to censor public debate on what is a arguably a significant issue.

       Complete lying bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself misrepresenting what the candidates wrote.

       What I read in the response e-mails were candidates who, given a list of submitted questions, expressed concern and their opinion about answering questions on a particular topic and why. Giving their reasons including the one about deliberate obnoxious behaviour and disruption of the meeting at previous meetings and the effect on people in other parts of the audience.

       My opinion after reading those e-mails and the press release was that SUFW were clearly desperately layering a specific and unsubstantiated interpretation as being fact, were attempting to say that the candidates weren't allowed to express their opinion or to raise their concerns, and frankly really hard to see any distinction between them and those narcissistic hecklers from Vision NZ trying to get themselves on camera at various debates.

       As for the obnoxious and sanctimonious Susan Levy who appears to be trying to make law and conventions out of nothing with
       "SUFW spokesperson Suzanne Levy said while candidates had the right to decline to answer questions, depriving all candidates of the chance to respond to issues that voters are concerned about represents a troubling trend in our democracy."

       Well she is just full of bogus bullshit. Democracy for the candidates role are about what they choose to do. The requirements are few and are laid out in the electoral act. There is no requirement for them to conform to the dictate of some self-appointed dimwit trying to invent their own rules and then impose then on either candidates of meeting organisers.

       But that is just my well-formed and thought-through opinion on that press release and SUFW (whoever that is).

       Reply
       • weka 4.1.2.1

         18 September 2023 at 2:38 pm

         sure, but she is actually pointing to the culture around this not the legislated rules. If it’s up to the organisers which questions get asked, and it’s valid for anyone to say ‘those questions aren’t ok’, then it’s valid for other people to say why those questions are important, and to point out the problems of removing the questions.

         Reply
         • lprent 4.1.2.1.1

           18 September 2023 at 3:35 pm

           but she is actually pointing to the culture around this not the legislated rules

           No, Susan Levy stated what she thought the conventions and rules should be. She was completely wrong. In addition, she lied about the actions and the motivations of the candidates and the organisers with a malicious unfounded interpretation that amounted to deliberate libel.

           Did any other candidates also raise concerns about any questions? I sure that they did – because they often do. Did that also have an effect on the pre-prepared questions. Most likely, they often do. For a starter, often the organisers put in their own questions – after all they are usually resident associations and they take questions from the own members as well.

           Were there questions allowed from the floor after the prepared ones were raised?

           Almost certainly – they have been at virtually every public election I have have attended. Certainly they have in the three I have been to so far this election (massive attendances so far in this election as well). It gets pretty damn hard to say that it is censored when other questions are called for from the floor. It is usually between a third and half of the allocated question time.

           The organisers of these public election meetings make their own decisions about how they decide to run a meeting. They listen to the questions being requested and the candidates who will express concerns. They listen to their own members. And they tend to limit questions that have relevance to actual election (I'll discuss that at the tail of this comment).

           You'll note that neither candidate said that they wouldn't turn up which would be about the only leverage that typically a candidate would have on the organisers.

           It simply isn't up to some self-appointed sanctimonious pressure group to try to

           • make the rules about how a democracy works
           • or to demand how meetings should be organised by a residents association, or any similar voluntary body who are prepared to the make the effort and incur the expenses
           • or to libel the candidates or the meeting organisers with unsubstantiated allegations about 'censorship'
           • or event to judge others for expressing their concerns about potential meeting disruptions or the effects on audience members.
           • or just about anything else.

           If they want to make up their own rules, then the same options apply as here. They can go and organise their own meeting and get the candidates and local voters to come. New groups try this regularly each election in various electorates. Only a few go on to do so at subsequent elections.

           The reason why you find that only some groups organise the meetings election after election is because they're trusted by candidates and voters to run reasonably ordered meetings. That all viewpoints are canvassed briefly by candidates and voters within the couple of hours available. Where people attending, both candidates and voters for a parliamentary election have busy schedules. They aren’t a place to pull out a megaphone and start yelling about things that have no relevance to the election at hand.

           Both candidates and the voters attending as a group strongly prefer meetings that aren't being drowned out by single issue groups obsessing over issues that parliament has absolutely no control over.

           Like the rules of international and local sports bodies. Which as I have pointed out before and shows up in that press release appears to be the sole issue of the SUFW as evidenced by their press statement in the whole of the last 3 paragraphs.

           The paragraph previous mentions another issue parliament has limited to no authority over. Crowd control at protests on public land are exclusively the operational responsibility of the NZ Police.

           It appears that these are the sole topics that the SUFW wish to raise in a parliamentary election?

           Both are the exact equivalent to asking candidates to make sure that the All Blacks win a few games.

           No guesses on what I think about that level of stupidity.

           Reply
       • Mr Nobody 4.1.2.2

         18 September 2023 at 3:18 pm

         Respectfully LPrent but just because you have a different opinion to me doesn't mean that I am lying. Simply we have different opinions.

         Looking at the documents shown on the link shared by Ankar it clearly shows an email from the MT Vic Ratepayers Associate sharing a list outlining the nature of some of the questions submitted ahead of a public debate.

         Subsequent to that email Tamatha Paul's (The Green Party avandidate) responds rising saying raising concerns while Ibrahim Omer from the labour party responds and says:

         We should not be giving a platform to views that question a person's identity.

         Which in my opinion is a fairly clear example of a Labour candidate trying to censor the debate by having to shut down.

         Reply
         • lprent 4.1.2.2.1

           18 September 2023 at 3:39 pm

           That was an accident. I was trying to respond to the same question you answered.

           Had to remove it and copy the reply to the relevant comment.

           Reply
5. lprent 5

   18 September 2023 at 1:47 pm

   I'd point out that all of the issues (apart from gender pay equity) are specific to woman at a medical level or as a identifiable social inequity. The latter policies are similar to policies on racial inequities in the justice system for exactly the same reason – observed structural inequities on our social balance.

   There are no mentions of changes to legislation or policy outside of that context. No mention of "women’s rights" making their way into legislation and violating the principle of BORA. No mention of compelling private sports organisations on how to run their business operations.

   In short this is good policy.

   Reply
   • weka 5.1

     18 September 2023 at 2:44 pm

     I think it's good policy too.

     The latter policies are similar to policies on racial inequities in the justice system for exactly the same reason – observed structural inequities on our social balance.

     Imagine the uproar if Labour brought out a Māori manifesto*. Women are trying to hang on to the bits of social capital we have. That's why there are quite a number of women so focussed on the other policies that specifically affect women around sex/gender. I don't agree with a lot of the comment under this thread because of how it's being done, and because it's strategically daft, but the sentiment I totally get.

     We think being a society that values change to address structural inequities is safe, but it's not. Māori are seeing that play out in real time.

     *tbf, I'm sure there will be some men who will complaining about why not a men's manifesto, but it's a different scale.

     Reply
     • lprent 5.1.1

       18 September 2023 at 3:54 pm

       Imagine the uproar if Labour brought out a Māori manifesto*.

       They usually do and yes there usually is an rather silly uproar. Because it is almost exactly the same kind of thing at the policy you're lauding about. It looks at medical, educational, and justice issues where there is clear structural inequity between Māori and the rest of the population.

       There is a reason why Labour usually gets clear majorities in most of the Māori seats and why it has a substantial Māori caucus inside Labour.

       some men who will complaining about why not a men's manifesto, but it's a different scale.

       Yeah, I get regular prostrate tests and have done for a while. Right now I have little packet in front of me that I am meant to crap on for a funded bowel cancer test. Seems kind of disgusting…..

       Reply
6. Tabletennis 6

   18 September 2023 at 2:06 pm

   Weka – "The wide use of women’s language in the document suggests there are quite a number of people in Labour involved in policy development who are not inclined to the extremes of gender identity ideology that insist on removing women’s language and making neutral our existence. "

   But of course other people are not, those that actually give the health care such as by Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand): I received this response on 11 September ‘23 from the Screening programme port folio manager, after I complained about being addressed in a letter to me as “people assigned female at birth” :

   “We appreciate your feedback and are sorry to hear you experienced this, as in no way do we expect anyone to feel their health and wellbeing is being undermined.

   Te Whatu Ora (Health New Zealand) uses gender neutral language to ensure public communications are inclusive and do not discriminate against a particular sex, social gender, or gender identity. “

   And :
   “As part of the rollout for the new test, we are updating the Cervical Screening content on the Time to Screen website with inclusive, gender-neutral, mana-affirming language throughout.”

   So in return I send the manager this link: the importance of sexed language concludes how ‘gender neutral language’ negatively affects Women’s Health and Wellbeing

   Note – I yet have to see any example of gender neutral language implemented re health care for males.

   Reply
7. Squirrel 7

   18 September 2023 at 6:23 pm

   Good health policies but as others have said, Labour really need to work on confirming that a woman is an adult human female. Women's safety and dignity depends on it.

   For the health policies, it's great to see the women focussed language but will they use that same language when they implement the policies? Or will they call us cervix-havers and chest-owners?

   The gender pay gap data will be tainted if men with pretend identities are allowed to be included in the "women" data and can we guarantee that the recipients of the innovation and entrepreneurship scholarship programme for low-middle income women will actually be women?

   For those who are interested, the Ministry for Women define a women as follows:

   Manatū Wāhine represents the interests of all women, including transgender women, and we recognise the right of all people to self-identify.

   As long as Labour are preventing women from discussing these things they have no place governing our country, while statements such as "men can't be lesbians" are considered controversial we really need to put the brakes on.

   Reply
   • weka 7.1

     18 September 2023 at 9:49 pm

     Given that all parties currently in parliament voted for the BDMRR amendment, I'm curious who you think should govern.

     I agree with the general gist, and there are definitely problems with language, but the fact that Labour produced an unashamedly pro-women manifesto is a good sign that we can make other changes.

     Reply
     • Squirrel 7.1.1

       19 September 2023 at 8:44 am

       I guess the test for me – which has already been done – is to see what happens when you ask Labour politicians about what I have said above (or similar). So far I have either been ignored or blocked. So the biggest issue for me is the 'NO DEBATE' stance.

       If we can't talk about women's rights (or other rights and issues) then that is a massive problem and something needs to change. None of them deserve my vote to be honest!

       A Ministry for Womens Affairs has done it's dash once it starts to include men (and it does).

       Reply
       • Molly 7.1.1.1

         19 September 2023 at 9:03 am

         "A Ministry for Womens Affairs has done it's dash once it starts to include men (and it does)."

         Agree. It allows people to see the truth behind all the apparent women based policies.

         Reply
         • Incognito 7.1.1.1.1

           19 September 2023 at 10:54 am

           Agree. It allows people to see the truth behind all the apparent women based policies. [my italics]

           And what might that ‘truth’ be, according to you?

           Reply
           • Molly 7.1.1.1.1.1

             20 September 2023 at 6:21 am

             That when they refer to women they are not referring to the sex category, but a group of women and men.

             Reply
       • weka 7.1.1.2

         19 September 2023 at 10:23 am

         ok, but that doesn't answer my question. If you believe Labour are not fit to govern, which parties do you believe are?

         Reply
       • Incognito 7.1.1.3

         19 September 2023 at 10:52 am

         A Ministry for Womens Affairs has done it's dash once it starts to include men (and it does).

         Right, it must be exclusive to and for women only?

         Reply
         • Molly 7.1.1.3.1

           20 September 2023 at 6:26 am

           If it aims to be fit for purpose, it'd be a good start.

           Your use of the word "exclusive" is an example of emotive reasoning. Provision for specific demographics will of course 'exclude' those not in those demographics, Eg. A pre-school does not enrol teenagers or pensioners. They are excluded from accessing an educational provision made for a specific age group.

           Reply
         • Squirrel 7.1.1.3.2

           20 September 2023 at 11:24 am

           I would say so.

           Reply
           • Incognito 7.1.1.3.2.1

             20 September 2023 at 10:40 pm

             Thank you. So, the problem is that 6 out of 40 staff are men?

             https://www.women.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-01/Ministry-for-Women-Annual-Report-2022_0.PDF [pg. 31]

             Reply
   • SPC 7.2

     19 September 2023 at 4:54 am

     Are you aware that ACT plans to cancel the Ministry of Womens Affairs (and the Human Rights Council and Waitangi Tribunal)?

     While Peters has adopted the women's ID cause (as the party's only women's policy), Luxon said this was of

     another world

     to his own focus on the more important economic issues.

     https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/08/17/luxon-says-nz-first-transgender-bathrooms-policy-on-another-planet/

     ACT also wants to freeze the MW for 3 years, cancel the FPA industry awards, restrict Super increases to the CPI increase and curtail a lot of spending on housing.

     This would result in lower levels of income and less available income related housing for sole parents and those who retire without home ownership (more women than men).

     Reply
     • weka 7.2.1

       19 September 2023 at 7:39 am

       Can you please link to where Act have said they would remove the Ministry for Women?

       Reply
     • SPC 7.2.2

       19 September 2023 at 8:07 am

       Under Act's alternative budget released this week, it would abolish the Māori Development Minister, Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Ministry for Women, Ministry for Ethnic Communities, and the Human Rights Commission.

       https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/05/10/national-wont-rule-out-act-policy-that-would-see-ministries-axed/

       Reply
       • Squirrel 7.2.2.1

         19 September 2023 at 9:18 am

         The Human Rights Commission is so totally captured it is no longer fit for purpose. It's been misrepresenting the HRA for ages in terms of sex and gender.

         They recently changed their website – added a disclaimer to say that their advice is not legal advice but the damage has already been done.

         Reply
         • Molly 7.2.2.1.1

           19 September 2023 at 9:28 am

           That's interesting. Worthwhile to take note of.

           Reply
         • weka 7.2.2.1.2

           19 September 2023 at 10:26 am

           The Human Rights Commission is so totally captured it is no longer fit for purpose. It's been misrepresenting the HRA for ages in terms of sex and gender.

           They recently changed their website – added a disclaimer to say that their advice is not legal advice but the damage has already been done.

           Moderation note: Please provide evidence for your claims of fact,

           1. the the HRC has been misrepresenting the HRA on sex/gender, and for how long

           2. the link to the disclaimer.

           It's a requirement of The Standard to provide evidence when requested. This is so we have robust debate rather than relying on hearsay.

           Please attend to this before you comment again.

           Reply
           • Tabletennis 7.2.2.1.2.1

             19 September 2023 at 11:19 am

             Note the Difference!

             Human Rights Act 1993 in legislation

             The Human Rights Act (HRA) makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex (including pregnancy and childbirth), marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origin (including nationality or citizenship), disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status and sexual orientation. etc
             https://tikatangata.org.nz/…/human-rights-in-legislation

             NZ Government:
             Human rights and freedoms -What is unlawful discrimination?

             Unlawful discrimination is when you’re treated unfairly or less favourably than another person because of your:

             • age
             • colour
             • race
             • disability, includes illness
             • employment status
             • ethical belief
             • ethnic or national origin
             • family status
             • marital status
             • political opinion
             • religious belief
             • gender identity
             • sex
             • sexual orientation.
               https://www.govt.nz/…/human…/human-rights-and-freedoms/

             the disclaimer added to the Human Rights Commission website, on or before 31 July 2023, after SUFW pointing out a possible misrepresentation of the HRA:
             https://tikatangata.org.nz/resources-and-support/frequently-asked-questions

             Reply
             • weka …

               19 September 2023 at 1:14 pm

               your first two links are broken.

               your last link goes to a generic FAQ page that has a lot of information in it, please link to the specific bit you mean.

               Reply
               • Tabletennis …

                 19 September 2023 at 2:30 pm

                 I'll try again: 1st link
                 https://tikatangata.org.nz/%E2%80%A6/human-rights-in-legislation

                 2nd link: https://www.govt.nz/browse/law-crime-and-justice/human-rights-in-nz/human-rights-and-freedoms/

                 3rd link (still works for me)

                 https://tikatangata.org.nz/resources-and-support/frequently-asked-questions

                 "Frequently Asked Questions ”

                 “This page addresses some frequently asked questions about discrimination and human rights. This guidance is intended to provide general information. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such.”

                 ” Human rights are a complex and evolving area of law, and some of the questions may be considered by the Human Rights Review Tribunal and courts in the future. Please contact us if you have questions or want more information.”"

                 Reply
           • Squirrel 7.2.2.1.2.2

             19 September 2023 at 3:36 pm

             I can see it is tricky to post images on here but SUFW did provide before and after screenshots of the HRC FAQ page. It's impossible to know how long the advice was available before the disclaimer was added but it was done sometime between July 3rd and July 31st. (the wayback machine is not behaving today)

             Current link: https://tikatangata.org.nz/resources-and-support/frequently-asked-questions

             The FAQ on transgender women being able to attend women-only pool nights is a good example of how the absence of the disclaimer would mean the HRC advice was misleading:

             I’m a transgender woman. Can I go to ‘women-only’ sessions at my local pool?

             Yes, you should be treated the same as other women. Transgender women should be able to go to women-only sessions and access other women’s spaces.

             The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for places providing a service to the public to discriminate against people because they are transgender.

             If you have been excluded from a place that provides a service to the public because you are transgender, you can contact the Human Rights Commission for information, support, or to make a complaint.

             The addition of the disclaimer – from the SUFW Twitter account:

             After a recent email from SUFW pointing out a possible misrepresentation of the HRA, we achieved the following result. Image on the left is July 3rd 2023, image on the right is today.

             Link to the tweet – https://x.com/SpeakUp4WomenNZ/status/1685892470712967169?s=20

             Reply
         • SPC 7.2.2.1.3

           19 September 2023 at 11:37 am

           It's been misrepresenting the HRA for ages in terms of sex and gender.

           Governments (worldwide not just locally) have conflated sex/gender to the point they did not bother with any change to the HRA here.

           Reply
           • SPC 7.2.2.1.3.1

             19 September 2023 at 1:41 pm

             List without the word gender.

             https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304475.html

             But note

             Under conversion practice – the word gender is finally used.

             https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/LMS738902.html

             Here it is

             https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0001/latest/LMS487215.html#LMS487215

             So there is reference to gender in the HRA, in reference to conversion practice at least.

             Reply
             • SPC …

               19 September 2023 at 2:28 pm

               Clarification.

               Other forms of discrimination listed here 63A (added in 2022).

               https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/DLM304212.html

               Conversion practices

               (1)

               It is unlawful for any person to

               (a)

               perform a conversion practice on any other person; or

               (b)

               arrange for a conversion practice to be performed on any other person.

               (2)

               In this section, conversion practice has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022.

               Section 63A: inserted, on 18 August 2022, by section 15 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022 (2022 No 1).

               https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/LMS738902.html

               The said section 15 mentions gender.

               https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0001/latest/LMS487215.html#LMS487215

               Reply
               • SPC …

                 19 September 2023 at 2:34 pm

                 Section 15

                 Meaning of conversion practice

                 (1)

                 In this Act, conversion practice means any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that—

                 (a)

                 is directed towards an individual because of the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; and

                 (b)

                 is done with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

                 (2)

                 However, conversion practice does not include—

                 (a)

                 any action that a health practitioner takes when providing a health service if the health practitioner—

                 (i)

                 considers in their reasonable professional judgement it is appropriate to take that action; and

                 (ii)

                 complies with all legal, professional, and ethical standards when taking the action; or

                 (b)

                 assisting an individual who is undergoing, or considering undergoing, a gender transition; or

                 (c)

                 assisting an individual to express their gender identity; or

                 (d)

                 providing acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual; or

                 (e)

                 facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development, or identity exploration, or facilitating social support for the individual; or

                 (f)

                 the expression only of a belief or a religious principle made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

                 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2022/0001/latest/LMS487215.html#LMS487215

                 Reply
       • weka 7.2.2.2

         19 September 2023 at 10:17 am

         cheers.

         Reply
8. SPC 8

   19 September 2023 at 9:43 am

   Sort of interesting to note the burn down the house sympathy with ACT party direction – given the ACT Party voted for self ID and has no women's policy on this, or any women's policy at all.

   ACT believes that all New Zealanders should have the same fundamental rights, regardless of race, religion, sexuality or gender.

   https://www.act.org.nz/democracy

   Reply
   • Tabletennis 8.1

     19 September 2023 at 11:40 am

     SPC – you do realise that there are more options to change the status quo?
     Some of us think: Women's Right Party or T.O.P.

     they might not be in parliament but it sent a message that a large group of the population is not happy with Govenment Departments single handedly, un-demogrately, changing and addressing who we are as women.
     For that reason I can't see any value in a Ministry for women.

     Reply
9. SPC 9

   19 September 2023 at 10:06 am

   Her ladyship of Glasgow.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnBofSfQCq0

   Reply

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS