Under urgency and with no public consultation, the Government has changed the Wildlife Act 1953, directly threatening at-risk indigenous species. This action undermines a High Court ruling protecting them from development like infrastructure and mining, effectively paving the way for their potential destruction. These changes prioritise development over the survival of Aotearoa's unique natural heritage, when we should be doing all we can to conserve and enhance it. Aotearoa's biodiversity is already fragile*.  We cannot afford laws that facilitate the destruction of our precious wildlife.  We must act swiftly to reverse these damaging changes and strengthen the Wildlife Act to truly safeguard our native species, and for future generations. Read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/08/new-zealand-our-environment-2025-report-native-species-face-extinction-threat “*More than 75 percent of indigenous reptile, bird, bat, and freshwater fish species groups are threatened with extinction or are at risk of becoming threatened.” https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/our-indigenous-species-are-at-risk-of-extinction Feature image: Archey's frog, Ian Preece

In 2014, VUW promised to divest from fossil fuels. The Vice Chancellor of Te Herenga Waka announced VUWs  “ethical investment stance” and pledged to divest $650,000 invested in fossil fuels. A decade later, evidence reveals that the Foundation still holds significant investments in fossil fuels through third-party investment managers. The 2014 commitment was clearly a false promise. The world that we wish to create is one of climate justice: where communities across the world live and thrive without the threat of flooding or drought, where our needs can be met through sustainable means, and where we can enjoy, without exploitation, the ecosystems that support human life. This future is created by investing in renewable energy and sustainable industries, not fossil fuels.  The Foundation should give weight to earth scientists’ “final warning”that “humanity faces ‘devastating domino effects’ including mass displacement and financial ruin” as the planet warms. The UN states that the “world is on the edge of a climate abyss”, and ecologists have said that unless we change course, ecosystem collapse is ‘inevitable’. ExxonMobile, (one of the companies in VUW’s investment portfolio) has known about the devastating effects of fossil fuels since the 1950’s and admitted to systematically undermining the efforts of climate scientists. There are no excuses. Investment in fossil fuels in 2025 is unjustifiable and should be abandoned immediately.  With this in mind, we make the following demands of Te Herenga Waka Victoria University and the Foundation board: 1. Disclose the amount of money the Foundation has invested in companies involved in fossil fuel production and distribution. The Foundation has already disclosed their fund managers, one of which oversees the fund “Schroder Sustainable Global Core PIE Fund (Hedged)”. This is of primary concern.  According to Mindful Money this fund contains 4.73% fossil fuel companies, including climate criminals such as ExxonMobil and Shell. With the foundation trust overseeing over $100M, dirty investments could make up millions of their portfolio. The VUW foundation must be transparent as this is the starting point for accountability. 2. Divest all money away from companies involved in fossil fuels. The Foundation’s divestment from Israeli government bonds in 2024 demonstrates that making changes to their investment portfolio is possible. We urge the Foundation to take the same rapid action and divest from fossil fuels.  3. Implement a specific exclusion policy with zero tolerance for fossil fuel investments. The Statement of Investment Policy Objectives (SIPO) that governs Foundation investments has failed to prevent unethical investments and can no longer be relied upon. The Board of Trustees must implement a policy to ensure that the Foundation permanently divests from fossil fuels, both directly and indirectly. VUW must follow through with its original pledge and prevent any money being placed into fossil fuel companies again. 

What are some of the impacts of the proposed development? Ultimately, this development must be stopped. A project of this scale—with serious cultural, ecological, and social implications—requires transparent, evidence-based decision-making that respects both the environment and the communities who call this place home. The proposed marina would cause irreversible damage: • To the Treaty partnership between the government, mana whenua and hapū • Destroying areas of cultural harvest significance • Eliminating native wildlife habitat, including that of high-risk species • Altering the ecological and visual landscape of Waipiro Bay • Privatising 9 hectares of public marine space • Extinguishing customary food-gathering areas Shockingly, the application lacks basic environmental assessments, including: • An Ecological Survey • A Hydrology Survey • A Cultural Impact Assessment • A robust Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) • Robust community input and engagement  Waipiro Bay is not just water—it is our taonga, a source of identity, sustenance, and intergenerational connection. We cannot protect our culture, pataka kai, and wildlife without proper evidence and an inclusive process. This development must return to the proper consent pathway, so the voices of the Bay of Islands are heard. To our community: Let’s stand together to protect our waters, kai sources, wildlife, and future. Sign the petition to stop this harmful development and safeguard Waipiro Bay for generations to come. What is the proposal? A local family with a commercial arm has proposed to build a 250+ berth marina. This marina is intended to service a wide range of vessel sizes. The proposal claims that the marina will benefit the public by:  • Reducing traffic at Te Uenga Boat Ramp • Providing potential key utilities (note – these are already available at the Opua marina); • Providing retail services. In summary, the proposal appears to provide mere convenience for a small portion of the community and does not provide a significant benefit at a regional or national level. What is required to approve Fast Track?  Under the Fast-Track Approvals Act, the following considerations are made when determining whether to approve fast track of a consent application:  • the project is an infrastructure or development project that would have significant regional or national benefits; and • referring the project to the fast-track approvals process –  • would facilitate the project by enabling it to be processed in a timely and cost-effective manner; and  • is unlikely to materially affect the efficient operation of the fast-track approvals process. In considering whether to refer the application to the fast-track approvals process, the relevant Minister must consider the following:  • Whether the project would be inconsistent with a Treaty settlement or a joint management agreement;  • whether it would be better dealt with under other legislation;  • whether the project has significant adverse effects on the environment;  • whether the project area includes land that is considered necessary for a Treaty settlement process.  Because Waipiro Bay is more than just a piece of coastline—it’s part of who we are. Here’s why it matters: • Waipiro Bay is a taonga, home to rich marine life, cultural traditions, and a close-knit community. • The Eastern Bay of Islands have been kept free of large-scale commercial development to preserve its scenic beauty and natural value. Maintaining its natural integrity is the best long-term economic and ecological value to the public. • The proposed marina would privatise public water, destroy customary food-gathering areas, and alter the bay forever. • The application bypasses due process, silencing local voices, ignoring Māori rights, and skipping essential environmental protections. • We have the evidence: demand for marina berths is low, and this project offers no proven regional or national benefit. • The sharp rise in boat density will further strain the already over-saturated Eastern Bay of Islands. • The economic benefits will go solely to the developers, with no meaningful revenue such as rates going to Council or the public. Instead, the marina will increase infrastructure costs, adding pressure to already limited Council resources. References https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/acts/fast-track-approvals/ https://www.dockland5.co.nz/ https://www.sail-world.com/news/268425/Okara-Marina-Berths-now-available https://data-nrcgis.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/aquaculture-exclusion-areas-5 https://www.whangareimarina.com/okara-marina https://www.boaties.co.nz/nearest/marinas https://www.boaties.co.nz/marinas/northland https://www.nrc.govt.nz/maritime/moorings/moorings-for-sale-or-rent-listings/ https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0003/latest/DLM3597250.html https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2024/0056/latest/LMS943260.html https://www.epa.govt.nz/fast-track-consenting/fast-track-approvals-act-2024/ https://www.nrc.govt.nz/resource-library-summary/plans-and-policies/moorings-and-marinas-strategy/moorings-and-marinas-strategy/ https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html https://www.bayofislandsmarina.co.nz/superyacht-mooring https://www.xn--morilandcourt-wqb.govt.nz/en MAC-01-01-076: Ngāti Kuta and Patukeha ki Te Rawhiti/ CIV-2017-485-321. 

Aotearoa is known on the world stage as a progressive, peaceful nation, and our Government should ensure that our policies are consistent with that reputation by putting people and the planet first. Proactive spending on wellbeing for people and the environment would go much further in ensuring peace and security than investing in the large global powers’ wars and aggression. We spent over $6 billion on Defence in 2024/25, while Aotearoa is considered one of the safest countries in the world and there is no threat of military invasion. The extra $12 billion of spending on the military is happening because the US government demands it - not because our country needs it.  Focussing on a “combat-ready” military with soldiers and weaponry doesn’t address the real threats to our security. A defence force ready for overseas combat cannot stop the emergencies caused by climate change, pandemics and earthquakes; or encroachment on fisheries; trade tariffs; cyber attacks and lone-wolf terrorism. We need to reconsider our place in the world and focus on these realistic existing threats. Our small, isolated country will only be in danger of attack if we are locked in with a major military power that’s threatening another major power. We can be a much more effective voice for a peaceful world if we become a non-aligned country. Meanwhile, essential public services in healthcare, education and social welfare have been defunded, resulting in growing distress and increased inequality, with negative effects on vulnerable citizens. Defence cost us $16.46 million a day [1] in 2024-2025. Consider a few examples of what that level of defence funding could be spent on instead [2]: • Midwives: one day’s worth of defence spending could pay 174 midwives for a year. • School teachers: one day’s worth of defence spending could pay 211 teachers for a year. • Hip replacement operations; public hospital: one day’s worth of defence spending could provide 890 hip operations. • Free prescriptions: less than two days’ worth of defence funding could pay for free prescriptions for everyone for a year. • Hospitals: with one year’s worth of current military spending we could build two new hospitals and have money left over. Instead of funding militarisation, we propose: Non-alignment. A policy of non-alignment is protective: if we are not militarily aligned with any major world power, we are less likely to be caught up in overseas wars or subject to attack. Non-alignment means we could protect our trading relationships without having to fight other people’s wars. Invest in civil defence/ emergency management. Emergency preparedness requires resources, transport, communications, and trained leadership. Community-based civil defence builds community in quiet times and provides local support after earthquakes or during severe weather events. Maintain adequate shipping, aircraft, and technology to protect fisheries and support Pacific neighbours. Surveillance ships and planes do not need to be armed for war. Support and aid to Pacific island nations is important to Aotearoa New Zealand as a good Pacific neighbour. Show leadership for peace. As a small and geographically isolated country, we have shone in international affairs through moral leadership, from the setting up of the United Nations to our principled Nuclear-Free policy and our successful “guitars not guns” peacekeeping role in Bougainville. Now is the time to renew our independent foreign policy and focus on the real threats to our security. Please sign and share this petition with your family and friends. Together we can develop a truly independent foreign policy, ensure sensible spending and lead the world in peace-making. Footnotes: 1.  If the new spending goes ahead, that number will be closer to $25 million a day, roughly $9 billion a year. And the government said that is just the beginning.  2. Data Sources:  1. NZ Budget 2024-25 Vote Defence and Vote NZ Defence Force; Parliamentary Library. 2. Salaries derived from careers.govt.nz 2024. 3. Hip replacements: estimated hospital cost data from: Te Whatu Ora/ Ministry of Health: “Publicly funded casemix hospitalisations 2021/22” (latest available in 2024) 4. Prescriptions, hospital building: media sources, 2024 Further reading: • Spend on inequity and the climate crisis, not soldiers’ wargames. Newsroom 6 June 2024 • Defence Force spend-up: Who is it meant to protect us against, and other questions, RNZ 8 April 2025. • Richard Jackson: Does NZ really need its defence force? RNZ 2 December 2023. • New Zealand abandons Indigenous Rights and Pacific priorities in foreign policy By Nina Hall and Rhieve Grey, The Diplomat 21 December 2023. • Is our investment in defence value for money? Newsroom 27 May 2024 • Just Defence www.justdefence.org

The Far North region lags behind other regions of Aotearoa New Zealand in reducing waste: we need to do more, and that starts with getting the correct title and responsibilities for this  important role!   FNDC understandably works to reduce their costs yet rising waste levels cost ratepayers in other ways. We seek greater focus at Council to align with the requirements of the FNDC Long Term Plan on waste minimisation as well as the recommendations of the 2024 council-sponsored Community/Iwi Working Group on Waste. The currently advertised name of ‘Solid Waste Engineer’ is inappropriate: engineering is not a major part of this role and this title fails to reflect the job we need someone to take responsibility for at Council:  to manage AND to minimise waste.    Now the incumbent is leaving the position, it is a perfect opportunity to rescope and rename the role.  Community, Iwi, and Farming and Business-led waste minimisation initiatives need support from someone in Council whose job title makes them instantly recognisable as the first point of contact.   The current Position Description for this advertised role lacks a focus on waste reduction: out of 18 Key Accountabilities, there is only one imprecise and very general reference: ‘Initiate Waste Minimisation planning and implementation.’  We believe this is insufficient, and request the Position Description to be amended to include specific reference to:  -          Providing advice with regards to waste and litter minimisation, recycling and resource recovery, particularly as they relate to communication and education.   -          Supporting community projects and initiatives to assist Far North communities and to recognise businesses and organisations committed to reducing waste to landfill and litter in the natural environment  -          Encouraging and supporting the FNDC organisation and its contractors to achieve Ecostar certification to highlight their role modelling of waste minimisation and resource recovery    -          Supporting and assisting with the implementation of relevant education actions for waste and litter minimisation and resource recovery strategies and plans.    In common with other councils across Aotearoa NZ,  FNDC has the responsibility to create and implement 5-yearly Waste Management & Minimisation Plans and the title, ‘Waste Management and Minimisation Officer’ will align with similar roles in other councils.      References   https://zeil.com/jobs/new-zealand/solid-waste-engineer?gj=ivfhp   https://localelections.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/FNDC-Long-Term-Plan-2015-2025.pdf   https://zerowastegranny.com/2018/01/06/2018-resolution-for-our-mayor/   https://www.ecosolutions.org.nz/pages/about-the-ecostar-programme

Kāwhia Harbour is a treasured natural environment that supports diverse marine life and provides important recreational opportunities for our community. Current vehicle access is causing ongoing damage to the harbour's ecosystem and poses serious safety risks to harbour users.    Vehicle traffic in sensitive areas is resulting in:  - Damage to shellfish beds and marine habitats and disruption to our endangered wildlife including tuturiwhatu/ NZ dotterel   - Erosion of harbour margins  - Safety concerns for families and children using the beach  - Disruption to natural coastal processes    The proposed Ocean Beach access way would provide a sustainable alternative that balances community access needs with environmental protection.    By signing this petition, you support the Kāwhia community's vision for a protected and sustainably managed Kāwhia Harbour for future generations. Endorsed by: Te Taiao o Kāwhia Moana & Onepū Charitable Trust 

***NOTE: This petition was delivered in April 2025. If you sign after that date, we will keep you updated about the campaign, but we won't deliver your name to Parliament. You can also follow us on Facebook or Instagram. Together, let's work for affordable public transport!*** We believe Aotearoa New Zealand should be a place where everyone can afford public transport. We are concerned that the Government is trying to increase the ‘private share funding targets’ for public transport which will require public transport authorities to significantly increase fares - often against their wishes - to meet those targets. This could add pressure for people, especially those most affected by transport poverty.  In Wellington the private share targets could lead to fare increases of over 70%[1]. Other councils have warned of similar and worse fare hikes, such as fares going from $2 to $8 in Christchurch[2].   We believe the Government should instead increase funding for public transport to reduce emissions and improve equity. We have a vision of free public transport for those who need it most. This would reduce emissions from a major sector (transport), reduce one aspect of the cost of living for those who spend the largest percentages of their weekly income on transport, and improve social connection in our communities. Central government funding for public transport ensures these free fares can be provided across the motu. It supports local authorities to provide public transport for their communities. Increased public transport fares have already greatly impacted low-income families, and cost of living is already increasing for the most vulnerable people, and further price increases would put even more pressure on them.  This petition has been organised by the Aotearoa Collective for Public Transport Equtiy: Free Fares NZ. Free Fares is a coalition of more than 100 organisations, including local councils, LGNZ, anti-poverty groups, student unions, and many churches, unions and other community organisations. They call for central government funding to ensure free fares for students, under 25s, Community Service Card holders and Total Mobility Card holders and their support people. The coalition has so far been successful in securing permanent half-price fares for Community Service Card holders. CLOSES 31 March 2025 Further reading The Fairer Future Coalition with support from the Disabled Persons Assembly. A Thousand Cuts: An Assessment of the Cumulative Impact of Recent Government Decisions on Disabled People and Other Communities. May, 2024. https://www.scribd.com/document/736889393/A-Thousand-Cuts  Relevant documents New Zealand Government, Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2023-2024,June 2024, https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Government-Policy-Statement-on-land-transport-2024-FINAL.pdf  NZTA, Increasing the private share of public transport operating expenditure Discussion document, 18 November 2024, https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Walking-Cycling-and-Public-Transport/docs/Increasing-the-private-share-of-public-transport-operating-expenditure-pta-discussion-document-november-2024.pdf [1] Bus and train fares may surge by up to 70% to meet NZTA targets | RNZ News [2] Bus fares could rise to $8 in Canterbury | Star News

McCallum Bros Limited is seeking consent through the Fast Track process to extract 8.45 million cubic metres of marine sand from the Bream Bay seabed over a 35-year period.  This large-scale sand mining operation threatens to disrupt the delicate balance of the coastal environment. Mining marine sand will not only destroy seabed habitats but will also disrupt sediment flows that are essential for maintaining coastal stability, potentially leading to erosion and loss of beaches. The process will release fine sediment plumes that smother marine life and degrade water quality, with effects extending well beyond the immediate mining area. Sand extraction from dynamic systems, such as riverine and active marine ecosystems, leads to significant environmental impacts, including coastal and river erosion, land-use changes, seabed removal: bathymetric change, increased turbidity, far field changes in tides and currents, threats to marine fisheries and biodiversity. The dredge head creates dead zones with sediment plumes caused by suspended silt lowering oxygen levels and smothering the seafloor plants. The plume can drift for miles triggering coastal erosion.  Marine Sands are habitats for microorganisms and cyanobacteria as the basis of marine food webs (Peduzzi 2014), as well as benthic species. Sand dredging in marine environments leads to major impacts on fauna and flora (Desprez et al. 2010), with significant impacts on biodiversity and fisheries. Marine plants act as an important carbon sink, many of which require a sandy subsoil for their reproduction (Sand and Sustainability: 10 strategic recommendations to avert a crisis 2022 – United Nations Environment Programme). Bream Bay is home to a unique and thriving marine ecosystem, providing critical habitats for a wide array of species, including fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. Bream Bay is also an essential resource for local industries such as fishing and tourism, as well as a cherished recreational space for residents and visitors. The health of Bream Bay’s ecosystem is vital for ensuring the long-term well-being of the environment, local communities, and industries that rely on it. This is our coast, and it must be protected. The Fast Track process excludes community participation of those that are most directly impacted.  Sustainable alternatives  Engineered sand is the future and a viable replacement for marine mined sand.  Waikato company Kayasand is scaling its production of engineered sand for concrete. Made from crusher dust and recycled materials using a process that conserves natural resources and makes strong concrete with 20% less cement. A sustainable and resilient supply. Proven technology used in over 300 plants worldwide. Kaipara Ltd has invested $17m in its East Auckland quarries to meet increasing demand. It will produce 25% of Auckland’s needs alone by the end of this year. It also has a plant in the Waikato which will be capable of producing construction quality sand for the next 1000 years.  What is at stake? • Marine life and ecosystems: Bream Bay is a critical breeding and feeding ground for marine species, many of which are protected, threatened or endangered. • Economic stability: Marine sand mining poses risks to industries such as fisheries and tourism, which are vital to our region’s economy. • Cultural and community well-being: Bream Bay holds cultural and recreational significance for local iwi, residents, and visitors. • Future sustainability: Renewable energy projects and other sustainable coastal developments could be jeopardised by the disruptive effects of marine sand mining.  What we are asking for: By signing this petition, we urge our local elected members and councils to act decisively to: •  Oppose the Fast Track sand mining application by McCallum Bros Limited; •  Advocate for comprehensive and independent assessments of the proposal’s impacts; and •  Ensure that our voices are heard in any decision-making processes. By uniting our collective voice, we can give our local elected members and councils the mandate to ensure the health and wellbeing of Bream Bay and local communities are protected into the future by submitting strong opposition on our behalf. Together, we can protect Bream Bay’s unique marine environment, preserve its cultural and recreational value, and secure a sustainable future for our communities. This is our coast. Let’s keep it safe for generations to come. For more information https://savebreambaysand.org/ References Sand and Sustainability: 10 Strategic Recommendations to Avert a Crisis | UNEP - UN Environment Programme Kayasand - Sand Manufacturing & Fine Aggregate Separation Products & Services UNEP Marine Sand Watch reveals massive extraction in the world’s oceans  ‘Alarming’ scale of marine sand dredging laid bare by new data platform

The South Taranaki Bight is home to a rich and diverse marine ecosystem supporting a wide range of species and habitats, including dolphins, penguins, and whales. The area is also a popular spot for fishing, with abundant and diverse fish species. The area’s underwater ecosystems include important feeding and breeding grounds for marine life, such as fish, seabirds, and marine mammals.  It is vital that the health of this abundant ecosystem is protected to ensure the long term health of these habitats and the wellbeing of our communities. This is our coast.  Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd (TTRL) is seeking to fast-track a proposal to mine iron sands from the seabed within the South Taranaki Bight. This proposal poses a direct threat to the marine life and habitats that depend on this delicate ecosystem. Seabed mining, which involves extracting minerals from the ocean floor, is an experimental and largely untested process. It presents significant risks to the seabed and surrounding environment, potentially causing far-reaching and irreversible damage to not only the project area, but extending many kilometres along the coast due to the spread of sediment plumes that could smother these ecosystems. TTRL wants to mine offshore in depths of up to 20-42 m deep. They plan to dig up 50 million tonnes or more of the seabed every year for 35 years, dumping 45 million tonnes back onto the ocean floor [1]. The dumping back of the waste is what differentiates seabed mining from sand mining, and it has a much bigger impact on the benthic and marine environment. This type of seabed mining has not been carried out anywhere else in the world. This isn’t TTRL's first attempt to get consent for seabed mining in the area. Over the past decade TTRL has had several unsuccessful attempts, spending millions of dollars on the hearing processes and using up an extraordinary amount of time and hundreds of thousands of dollars from the New Zealand public and existing industries, particularly fisheries, opposing their plans. So far their attempts to gain consent have been unsuccessful for risks to the ecosystems and inadequate information in their applications [2]. Now TTRL is making another attempt to secure consent for seabed mining off the Taranaki Coast through the new Fast Track process.  The application area in 2024 is 66km2, but the company has permits for over ten times this area, for which a fast track consent could create a precedent. By applying to the Fast Track process TTRL are trying to side step the ongoing opposition to their plans. The Fast Track Bill proposes no feedback and submission process from the community, and only allows submissions from invited “relevant” local authorities.  The local community has rallied against this proposal for years, dedicating significant time and resources to protect this precious environment. Local Iwi, along with residents, environmental organisations, boaties, fishers, surfers, and dairy farmers have been continually fighting to oppose this operation [3]. Offshore wind energy development is also threatened by seabed mining, and one developer has already pulled plans for this renewable energy source, due to TTR’s mining bid [4]. Wind farm developers are adamant the 2 projects are not compatible. The full economic and environmental impacts of this proposal have not been adequately assessed or presented. To fully understand the potential consequences of seabed mining, an independent regional cost-benefit analysis is needed. This analysis would provide a comprehensive evaluation of both the short-term and long-term effects on the local economy, environment, and community well-being. Because local councils are potentially the only bodies invited to provide feedback to the Fast Track expert panel or the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), it is crucial that we, as residents directly impacted by this proposal, come together in opposition.  By uniting our collective voice, we can give our local councils the mandate to ensure the health and wellbeing of our unique coast and communities are protected into the future by submitting strong opposition on our behalf. For more information on the social and environmental effects and the known economic costs and benefits please check out our website at: https://www.concernedcommunities.co.nz/ Bfm radio interview here: https://95bfm.com/bcast/get-action-concerned-communites-of-taranaki-and-manawatu-against-seabed-mining-w-whanganui-district  References:  1. https://www.forestandbird.org.nz/campaigns/seabed-mining 2. https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2021/2021-NZSC-127.pdf 3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/19/deep-sea-mining-new-zealand-south-taranaki-bight-ocean-seabed-patea-beach-ntwnfb 4. https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/10/24/offshore-wind-developer-pulls-out-of-nz-amid-seabed-mining-concerns/ 

The Tawa On Demand bus service provides vital access to local services for those living up on our steep hills, and enables a car-free commute for those working in town. It supports families and people with limited mobility, reduces traffic and emissions, and improves social cohesion. The service has exceeded expectations, with consistent usage and 96% customer satisfaction. Without continued support from GWRC, the service will have to stop at the end of this year. We’re asking GWRC to commit to funding sustainable public transport within Tawa - whether that’s the existing Tawa On Demand service, a scheduled service, or a mixture of the two, and to asking the Government to help out.

The ageing Interislander ferries must be replaced. We believe it’s crucial that new ferries are rail-enabled and publicly owned, letting rail freight and equipment move easily between the North and South Islands. Without rail-enabled ferries, the two islands’ rail networks will be disconnected, restricting the movement of goods and putting the South Island’s whole rail network at risk. Current and future passenger rail services also rely on a viable national rail network.  The government said in its transport policy statement that it would prioritise making the best use of existing transport infrastructure. The only decision consistent with this policy is to ensure future ferries are rail-enabled and remain in public ownership.

Vaping is an issue in New Zealand that affects many people’s health habits and can be easily picked up at a young age. There is a particular concern around vaping and the ways it impacts youth. Vaping in schools is a concerning issue in New Zealand, with school kids obtaining vapes and vaping during school hours.  Our petition aims to reduce the amount of vape sales as well as make it common knowledge that vaping is bad for your health. By changing the packaging to be the same as cigarette packaging, we are hoping that this will help hinder the promotion of vapes and inform consumers about the serious health risks they are taking when they are using one. We hope that the impact of our petition helps to inform people that vapes are dangerous to health. We think that vaping is an issue among a large amount of the NZ population and one that impacts us both socially and in a health context. Australia has made significant, admirable crack-downs when it comes to vaping. For packaging, they require that it remains “plain”. By this, they mean “be packaged in a certain colour, display brand names in certain ways, display the required text and graphic health warnings, not display logos, brand images or promotional text.” (3) By doing this they have minimised the appeal of purchasing the products. Corporate interests will undoubtedly affect our ability to change vape packaging, as vape companies prioritise profitability and marketability over public health concerns. Improved packaging will not be seen as an improvement to vape companies as health warnings, no logos, and no bright colours will impact their sales and make them take a turn for the worse, which ultimately means less profit for them. They want their packaging to be attractive in order to keep addicts buying their products. Vapes and vape packaging are brightly or pastel coloured, often with cartoon characters or images displayed. This packaging is part of the reason that makes vaping so attractive and popular among youth. Marketing strategies implemented by vape companies include the packaging targeting youth. According to News Medical, “Packaging holds a significant position in promoting vaping products, including devices, pods, and e-liquids. Candy- or fruit-flavoured vaping products sold in colourful packaging are known to attract the youth attention more than adult smokers. Moreover, packaging of such products is often designed to resemble food or drink products that are mostly marketed to the youth” (4). References: 1. https://www.health.govt.nz/publications 2. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/24952/012318ecigaretteConclusionsbyEvidence.pdf 3. https://www.health.gov.au/topics/smoking-vaping-and-tobacco/tobacco-control/plain-packaging 4. https://www.news-medical.net/health/Colorful-Packaging-Hidden-Dangers-The-Push-to-Regulate-Vape-Aesthetics.aspx