Matt Henry takes six wickets as New Zealand seize advantage in Bulawayo
Act minister David Seymour and Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick join Ryan Bridge on Herald NOW to discuss oil and gas exploration, the nurses' strike and electoral law changes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Sex Matters When It Comes To Human Rights
Last week [28 July] the Human Rights Commission (HRC) changed its statement at the bottom of a media release about transgender guidelines in sport. Responding to complaints about misinformation stating that 'gender identity and expression' are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act when it is NOT, the HRC responded to complainants with the following: 'We understand that some members of the public were concerned that our original media statement suggested that gender identity and expression are explicitly listed in the Human Rights Act 1993 or the legal definition of the ground of sex. 'We have heard the view that the language used may have been unclear, and we acknowledge that some people have felt that the statement did not reflect or protect their understanding of sex-based rights. 'Considering the feedback we have received, we have updated our public statement to provide greater clarity and accuracy regarding the relevant legal framework. This amendment was made to more accurately reflect the language of the Act, while still setting out the Commission's application of how gender identity and gender expression are interpreted within the scope of the prohibited ground of sex. The amended statement can be accessed on our website here.' The HRC reply continued, saying that as part of its mandate the Commission interprets the Human Rights Act in line with international human rights standards and New Zealand's obligations under those frameworks. 'It is our long-standing view that discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression falls within the prohibited ground of sex discrimination, and this has informed our guidance over several years.' The Women's Rights Party has responded, asking the HRC to clarify just which international human rights standards and obligations New Zealand has signed up to. We have yet to receive a response. We suspect the HRC is relying on the Yogyakarta Principles, which have no standing in international law and have never been adopted by the United Nations. When he was the Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt signed up to these Principles, which set out rights put forward by participants at a conference in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2006 (and revisited 10 years later). Why it is important to be clear about 'sex' When it comes to women's rights, sex matters. That is because, in addition to 'sex' being a prohibited ground in terms of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993, there are a number of exceptions in the Act that allow positive discrimination to protect women on the basis of sex. When the Human Rights Act was drawn up in 1993 to comply with the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), it was understood that sex meant women and men. The fact that the prohibited ground of sex was qualified by reference to pregnancy and childbirth suggests that this was the understanding of sex. In fact, unless sex is defined in terms of biological sex, the sex-based exceptions that currently protect women's single-sex spaces and women's sports are meaningless. Sexual orientation, referring to same-sex attraction or opposite sex attraction, is also meaningless if it doesn't refer to biological sex. In Australia, lesbians are not allowed to have lesbian-only events or get-togethers, including social media groups, because in 2013 the Australian Sex Discrimination Act removed the definition of sex in terms of men and women, and replaced it with 'gender'. It was on this basis that Roxanne Tickle, a man who identifies as a woman, was able to win his case against Sall Grover's app for women and girls only. The Tickle v Grover case is currently being heard this week (4-9 August) in the Australian Federal Court. Sex-based exceptions in the Human Rights Act include s27 of Exceptions in Relation to Employment Matters, which allows for different treatment based on sex or age where being of a particular sex or age is a genuine occupational qualification for the position or employment, for example, a counsellor specialising in highly personal matters such as sexual matters or the prevention of violence. Here are some more… Section 43 Exceptions in relation to access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities S43 allows for the maintenance of separate facilities for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety. Section 44 Provision of goods and services Suppliers of goods, facilities, or services to the public can't refuse to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Section 46 Exception in relation to public decency or safety Notwithstanding s44, in s46 suppliers of good and services can provide separate facilities or services for each sex, i.e. single-sex services or spaces, are allowed on the ground of public decency or public safety. Section 47 Exception in relation to skill Where the nature of a skill varies according to whether it is exercised in relation to men or women, a person does not commit a breach of section 44 by exercising the skill in relation to one sex only, in accordance with that person's normal practice. This is the only place in the Human Rights Act where sex is defined in terms of men and women. (Note this exception specifically refers to men and women). Section 48 Exception in relation to insurance Insurance companies can offer or provide life insurance policies, or other policies of insurance, on different terms or conditions for each sex or for persons with a disability or for persons of different ages if, for example, the different treatment is based on actuarial or statistical data, upon which it is reasonable to rely, relating to life-expectancy, accidents, or sickness. (Note if "sex" included "gender identity" it would have said "all genders" not "each sex".) Section 49 Exception in relation to sport In s49 it is lawful to exclude one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant. This doesn't apply to coaches, umpires or referees, sports administrators, or sporting activities for children under 12. It is also lawful to exclude someone from a competitive sporting event or activity if that person's disability is such that there would be a risk of harm to that person or to others. It is lawful to conduct competitive sporting events or activities in which only persons with a particular disability or age qualification may take part, like Masters events or Special Olympics. Section 55 Exception in relation to hostels, institutions, etc Hostels, or establishments such as a hospitals, clubs, schools, universities, religious institutions, or retirement villages, can provide accommodation only for persons of the same sex, marital status, or religious or ethical belief, or for persons with a particular disability, or for persons in a particular age group. This can include part of an establishment. Section 58 Exceptions in relation to establishments for particular groups Educational establishments for students of one sex, race, or religious belief, or for students with a particular disability, or for students in a particular age group, can under s58 refuse to admit students of a different sex, race, or religious belief, or students. There are other forms of discrimination covered by the Act, such as racial and sexual harassment, adverse treatment in employment of people affected by family violence (mostly women, of course), and superannuation schemes (mostly in relation to disability and age, though it is also lawful to provide different benefits for members of each sex). Currently the Law Commission is preparing a report to advise Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith, due out late next month, to provide advice as to whether 'gender identity and expression' and 'innate variations of sex characteristics' should be included as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Although many government agencies, local bodies and non-governmental organisations believe it to be the case, 'gender identity' is not included in the prohibited grounds of discrimination which are found in s21 of the Human Rights Act. The current prohibited grounds are: sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth marital status religious belief ethical belief disability, which includes physical disability or impairment, physical illness, psychiatric illness, intellectual or psychological disability or impairment age political opinion employment status, e.g. being unemployed; or a beneficiary family status sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Launches Largest Local Government Campaign In New Zealand
ACT Local has today unveiled its full slate of candidates for the 2025 local body elections: 46 practical, community-minded New Zealanders standing across 25 councils. With 37 ward and constituency level candidates, it's the largest local government campaign mounted by a political party in New Zealand, including Labour and the Greens who have stood council candidates for many years. ACT Local is standing a further 9 candidates for Auckland Local Board positions. 'These are New Zealanders who've had enough of being ignored by their councils,' says ACT Leader David Seymour. 'They're stepping up to deliver real change and lower rates. 'ACT's candidates come from all walks of life; we have business owners, tradies, healthcare workers, farmers, and many professionals. What unites them is a belief in sensible spending, equal rights, and a back-to-basics approach. They're ready to bring real-world experience and common sense to the council table. 'Many have built successful careers, but more importantly, they're local residents and ratepayers – people who've built homes, raised families, and dealt firsthand with council bureaucracy. They know what it's like to stretch a budget and deal with the challenges people face locally. 'Now they're stepping forward to bring practical solutions and a laser focus on core services like roads, water, and rubbish. 'In central government, ACT is cutting waste, defending equal rights, and taking pressure off households. Our councillors will do the same: vote against wasteful spending, stand up for democratic principles, and focus on essential services without driving up rates. 'Kiwis voted for real change in 2023, but our councils missed the memo. 'While ratepayers face eye-watering rate hikes, councils are blowing money on vanity projects, pushing ideological agendas like co-governance, and wasting time grandstanding about global politics – all while ignoring the basics. 'Every local election, voters get the little booklet with their ballot paper and tick whoever they think will do the best job. But too often, you don't know what you are going to get. Candidates promise one thing and then do another. With ACT Local candidates, you'll know exactly where they stand. 'So if there's an ACT Local candidate in your area and you want real change from your council, I hope you will give them your support.' Candidate profiles can be found here. A full list of our candidates is below: Northland Far North District Council Davina Smolders – Bay of Islands–Whangaroa Ward Whangārei District Council Matthew Yovich – Bream Bay Ward Kaipara District Council Nima Maleiki – Kaiwaka–Mangawhai Ward Roger Billington – Otamatea Ward Auckland Council & Local Boards Albany Ward and Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Hibiscus Coast Subdivision) Samuel Mills North Shore Ward and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Helena Roza Franklin Ward and Franklin Local Board (Wairoa Subdivision) Dene Green Howick Ward and Howick Local Board (Botany Subdivision) Ali Dahche Manukau Ward and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (Ōtara Subdivision) Henrietta Devoe Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Hibiscus Coast Subdivision) Yang Qu Kaipātiki Local Board Martin Lundqvist Henderson-Massey Local Board Ben Cox Ōrākei Local Board Martin Mahler Amanda Lockyer Robert Meredith Howick Local Board (Pakuranga Subdivision) Pat Arroyo Howick Local Board (Howick Subdivision) William Goldberg Papakura Local Board Prasad Gawande Central & Lower North Island Waikato District Council Peter Mayall – Tamahere–Woodlands Ward Hauraki District Council Michelle Magnus – Paeroa Ward Andrew Pickford – Plains Ward Waipa District Council Stuart Hylton – Cambridge Ward Hamilton City Council Nidhita Gosai – West Ward Preet Dhaliwal – East Ward New Plymouth District Council Damon Fox – Kaitake–Ngāmotu Ward Napier City Council Iain Bradley – Ahuriri Ward Manawatū District Council Jerry Pickford – Feilding Ward Aaron McLeod – Feilding Ward Palmerston North City Council Glen Williams – General Ward Porirua City Council Phill Houlihan – Pāuatahanui Ward Greater Wellington Regional Council Nigel Elder – Lower Hutt Constituency Alice Claire Hurdle – Wellington Constituency Wellington City Council Ray Bowden – Onslow–Western Ward Mark Flynn – Northern Ward Luke Kuggeleijn – Eastern Ward South Island Candidates Tasman District Council David Ross – Motueka Ward Daniel Shirley – Richmond Ward Marlborough District Council Malcolm Taylor – Marlborough Sounds Ward John Hyndman – Blenheim Ward Hurunui District Council Tom Spooner – South Ward Waimakariri District Council Nathan Atkins – Kaiapoi–Woodend Ward Selwyn District Council Chris Till – Rolleston Ward Timaru District Council John Bolt – Timaru Ward Environment Canterbury Regional Council Toni Severin – South Canterbury Constituency Otago Regional Council Robbie Byars – Molyneux Constituency Dunedin City Council Anthony Kenny – Council At-large Ward
RNZ News
15 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: The politics of PayWave
Photo: 123RF "Can someone get the Beehive a press secretary who can understand a news cycle?" asked the host of Herald Now show Ryan Bridge, opening his show last Tuesday with a bit of a broadside at the government's political management. "Yesterday we had a 10-minute sermon - that's the opposition's words - from Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon about the cost of living crisis," he said, referring to Monday's post-Cabinet press conference . That was timed for the first anniversary of their tax cuts - so why was that timing so bad? Bridge flourished The Herald 's own front page that day with a scoop about big boosts to the fees that Crown bodies can pay board members. "It's probably the worst headline you could have at a time like this," he spluttered. "Now I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but the timing... come on!" In bad economic times, stuff that looks bad can end up looking a lot worse no matter what day it goes public. The lead story on Herald Now that day also looked like it was timed with optics in mind - banning surcharges on in-store contactless transactions. "Those pesky surcharges on card payments are gone-skis," Bridge declared, echoing the government's own announcement. "Most customers will be very happy to see an end to the horrible little curled up handwritten coffee stain stickers on the EFTPOS machine," Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson told Ryan Bridge. But Bridge was not distracted by the aesthetics of EFTPOS terminals. He wanted to know who would really reap the benefit of the estimated $150 million saved from the surcharges salami-sliced out at stores as things stand. "That will be absorbed into the retail system," the minister said. "Right. Higher prices, in other words?" Bridge asked. "It's not much over the entire New Zealand commercial marketplace," the minister countered. But if so, it would not really cut the cost of living very much at all - and was not really a strong lead story at a time with so much else going on. "We can only pray that Luxon and Willis understand that shifting $90 million from banks to consumers is irrelevant in the context of a $430 billion economy, including the $7.2 billion the banks made in profits last year," columnist Matthew Hooton said in The Herald on Friday. Consumer NZ was not stoked that credit card surcharges applied to online payments were not covered by the ban. "This is disappointing because your flight or accommodation booking or any other online purchases could still attract a surcharge," Consumer NZ said. "Those transactions are generally much more expensive to process because... they have to protect against online scams, online fraud," Nicola Willis told RNZ's First Up . "We've kept them out of the regime for now because part-passing on the charge to the consumer makes more sense there," she added. But banks also deal with that and their charges are regulated - and it is far from transparent now how those costs are covered for online credit card transactions. While the Prime Minister had said on Monday: "You will no longer be penalised for your choice of payment method," media scrutiny this week revealed that users of EFTPOS and cash payers might end up penalised by a ban. "Any transaction where someone pays by swiping or inserting, is free for a retailer. But as people move to contactless... a higher percentage of their transactions will incur a fee," Retail NZ's Carolyn Young told RNZ 's Morning Report . The Commerce Commission recently moved to cap the interchange fees banks charge each other. That was also meant to reduce the cost to retailers. More people now using PayWave could wipe out the other potential benefits. "I think it's really just performative. If we're paywaving everywhere and then the costs are shared across everyone," Dan Brunskill of told RNZ 's Nine to Noon on Tuesday when asked about the PayWave surcharge ban. The same day BusinessDesk pointed out that just 10 days earlier the Commerce Commission had claimed its interchange fee cap would save businesses $90 million a year in payment costs. The Commission [ also said it was already exploring what regulation may be needed to address excessive surcharging, which it estimated at about $45 million to $60 million a year. But Business Desk's headline Government beats Commerce Commission to card surcharge ban showed that in this case, the government might have got its PR timing right to take the credit for reduced credit card payment costs now. The media scrutiny also illuminated another duopolistic aspect of our economy: Visa and MasterCard dominating this payment trade. Alternatives do exist, BusinessDesk tech reporter Peter Griffin pointed out on Wednesday . But he said after the surcharge ban, PayWavers here will be less likely to seek out cheaper solutions if they cannot see they are cheaper. "We should now focus on reducing the underlying costs of payment processing, not simply regulating away the only mechanism for acknowledging those costs. In the world of payments, as in so much else, what's visible on the bill is only the start of the story." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
