Thousands Of Teens Plead For Government To Take Action On Modern Slavery
A delegation of World Vision youth Advocacy Ambassadors will present the letters to MPs on Parliament's Steps at 12.30pm on Wednesday July 16. National MP Greg Flemming and Labour MP Camilla Belich will be there to receive the submissions.
The letters were written and collected at a series of World Vision New Zealand Youth Conferences and universities earlier in the year where thousands expressed their dismay at New Zealand's lack of laws to address modern slavery.
World Vision Advocacy Ambassador 19-year-old Lily Murphy says New Zealand young people are passionate about the need for action on modern slavery.
'It is disgraceful that New Zealand has failed for so long to introduce any form of regulation against using modern slavery in Kiwi production lines.
'Young people are calling for a system where doing the right thing isn't optional, it's the law,' the Dunedin student says.
Messages contained in the letters to MPs include:
'I don't want my belongings created by someone whose human rights are ignored.'
'As a country we have a responsibility to ensure that our goods and services are not supporting exploitation, to prevent abuse, and support victims of slavery.'
'New Zealanders deserve to know that our goods and services are not built on the backs of exploited people.'
Fellow World Vision Advocacy Ambassador, 19-year-old Breanna Rickman, says she hopes MPs will take heed of the collective call from young people for a Modern Slavery Act.
'Young people all over New Zealand care about addressing modern slavery because they can see and understand the harsh effect it has on millions of people.
'We want the MPs to receive these letters and understand that there are so many people who are passionate about making this change for our country. This is a plea from New Zealand young people for our MPs to act as the representatives we voted them to be and back a Modern Slavery Bill,' she says.
There is currently a Private Member's Bill from National MP Greg Flemming in the ballot while Labour was preparing to introduce a Modern Slavery Act when it was in Government.
World Vision National Director, Grant Bayldon, who will also be at parliament for the handover of the letters, says there is cross party support for a modern slavery act.
'We know both Labour and National support some form of regulation to address modern slavery. Let's capitalise on that consensus! We need our MPs to put the politics aside and to come together to protect the millions who are affected by modern slavery,' he says.
Notes:
The following MPs will meet with the World Vision Advocacy Ambassadors as they present their letters:
Rachel Brooking (Labour)
Shanan Halbert (Labour)
Ingrid Leary (Labour)
Tamatha Paul (Green)
Suze Redmayne (National)
Tom Rutherford (National)
Jane Tinetti (Labour)
Ryan Hamilton (National)
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pati Maori)
Miles Anderson (National)
Menéndez March Ricardon (Green)
Wedd Catherine (National)
Willis Scott (Green)
Camilla Belich (Labour)
Greg Fleming (National)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal
Opinion: The Government's decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as 'giving tax breaks to tobacco companies'. It's a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn't help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest. Let's be clear: this isn't a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It's an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.) Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don't produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents. That distinction matters. The multinational tobacco company Philip Morris does hold a monopoly over HTPs in New Zealand. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean the tax policy exists for Philip Morris International. The intention is to make a less harmful product more affordable than cigarettes – a principle long accepted in tobacco harm reduction, and already applied to vaping. Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn't yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal. In addition, the apparent impact of PMI on government policy is tough to ignore, and contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seeks to protect government policy from tobacco industry influence. New Zealand has rightly taxed cigarettes heavily to deter use. But excise taxes are also regressive. The remaining people who smoke – fewer than 7 percent of adults – are disproportionately Māori, Pasifika, low-income, and more likely to experience mental health distress. The associate minister of health, Casey Costello, justified the excise differential by citing relative harm reduction and the growing inequity of uniform excise. Her reasoning deserves more attention than it has been given. Critics argue there's insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn't make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax. The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that's a shift in the right direction. What's really at stake here? Not a tax break for big tobacco – but increasing the options for people who smoke and want to quit, and whether we believe in a response to nicotine products based on their comparative risks to human health as a foundation for public health policy. A more productive debate would ask: • Are they less harmful than cigarettes, and do they help smokers quit? • Are tax savings being passed on to consumers? • Are HTPs being promoted responsibly? • Will there be an independent evaluation of their impact on smoking rates? In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that's increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity. If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It's a good policy – provided it's transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Ex-minister hits out at pine carbon farming
A tree industry expert and former minister of forestry has condemned "lock and leave" carbon farming, but says you still can not tell farmers what to do with their land. Former Labour minister Stuart Nash said in his time with the portfolio he had a dream for how the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) would benefit the country. "With the ETS, for the first time ever there's been an economic incentive to plant up land that should have never been cleared in the first place," he said. But forestry conversions, since the incentive was introduced, where dense pines were planted with no plan to harvest the mature trees, were not good, he said. "You will end up with an ecological disaster in between 80 and 100 years," he said. He understood that some legislation was developing to help restrict the planting of pines, but said you still can not tell farmers what to do with their land and their money. "I don't know if that's the right route," he said. "Farmers get pretty p..... off ... because what it does mean is, their farm which may be worth, $10 million to a forester is now only worth $7m." The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme-Forestry Conversions) Amendment Bill passed its first reading in June. It proposed restrictions to the quality and proportion of arable land that could be planted in trees. Mr Nash had a masters degree in forestry science and previously worked for construction, paper and forestry giants Carter Holt Harvey and Fletcher Challenge. His ideal for carbon farming was that pines would be planted low density, for no longer than 50 years, while at the same time seeding natives. Then after 50 years, the ministry would allow the grower to collect carbon credits of the native forest as the pines died off. In this ideal situation, carbon farmers would not be allowed to collect credits or money on pines past that 50-year cut-off. He said research by the sustainability charitable trust Pure Advantage showed that Mānuka could be a just as fast growing and carbon-absorbing alternative to pines. While he was the minister, he said the research needed more time to cook and the good thing about pines were that they were the most hardy. "It's the over-boiled Brussels sprouts of the trees," he said. "Not many people like it, not many [bugs and diseases] like it [either]." Coming from Napier, he had seen the devastation Cylone Gabrielle and Cyclone Hale had on the east coast of the North Island in 2023. This was where trees on farms would have come in handy, he said as roots made the ground more hardy, and would have prevented slips and other soft ground corrosion after the floods. A lot of New Zealand land should never had been cleared for farming and he said it was expensive to plant hilly, non-productive land, without incentive. He said despite seeing the benefit of forests and the ETS for the land, he by no means wanted to see highly productive farms and soil turned into carbon farms. "I'm really loathe to tell farmers what they should and shouldn't do," he said. "But I'm very happy to tell carbon farmers what they should do."
1News
11 hours ago
- 1News
Government forges ahead with foreshore and seabed law
The Government is forging ahead with plans to change the law governing New Zealand's foreshore and seabed, despite a Supreme Court ruling last year that appeared to undercut the rationale for the change. The proposed legislation stems from a clause in National's coalition deal with NZ First, which promised to revisit the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. That commitment was driven by fears that a 2023 Court of Appeal decision could have made it significantly easier for Māori groups to win recognition of customary rights over parts of the coastline. The Government introduced a bill to Parliament last year to prevent that, but it hit pause in December after the Supreme Court effectively overturned the earlier ruling. At the time, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith welcomed the development and said ministers would take time to reassess their plans. ADVERTISEMENT On Tuesday, Goldsmith confirmed to RNZ that Cabinet had agreed to press ahead with the law change regardless and to pass it before October. "Everybody in New Zealand has an interest in what goes on in the coastline, and we're trying our best to get that balance right." Goldsmith said he was not convinced that last year's Supreme Court ruling had set a high enough test for judging whether customary rights should be granted. "We've had a couple of cases that have been decided since then - which have shown almost 100% of the coastline and those areas being granted customary marine title - which confirmed to us that the Supreme Court test still didn't achieve the balance that we think the legislation set out to achieve." Asked whether he expected an upswell of protest, Goldsmith said that had been an earlier concern but: "time will tell". "There's been a wide variety of views, some in favour, some against, but we think this is the right thing to do." The legislation was one of the key objections raised by Ngāpuhi leaders last year when they walked out on a meeting with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in protest. ADVERTISEMENT More than 200 applications for customary marine title are making their way through the courts. Under the amendment bill, any court decisions issued after 25 July 2024, will need to be reconsidered. That would appear to cover seven cases, involving various iwi from around the country. "I understand their frustration over that," Goldsmith said. "But we believe it is very important to get this right, because it affects the whole of New Zealand." Goldsmith said the government had set aside about $15 million to cover the additional legal costs. The Marine and Coastal Area Act was originally passed by the National-led government in 2011, replacing the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which had extinguished Māori customary rights in favour of Crown ownership. The 2004 law, introduced by Helen Clark's Labour government, provoked widespread protest and led to the creation of the Māori Party, now known as Te Pāti Māori. National's 2011 replacement declared that no one owned the foreshore and seabed but allowed Māori groups to seek recognition of their rights - or "Customary Marine Title" - through the courts or in direct negotiations with the Crown. ADVERTISEMENT Customary title recognises exclusive Māori rights to parts of the foreshore and seabed, provided certain legal tests are met, including proving continuous and "exclusive" use of the area since 1840 without substantial interruption. The 2023 Court of Appeal ruling, however, declared that groups only needed to show they had enough control over the area that they could keep others from using it, and that situations where the law itself had prevented them from doing so could be ignored. The Supreme Court subsequently overturned that and said the Court of Appeal had taken an unduly narrow approach in its interpretation.
