1. Risk to Public Safety: Psychology is a highly skilled profession requiring extensive postgraduate education, clinical training, and supervised practice. A one-year training programme following an undergraduate degree does not equip individuals with the necessary clinical competence to assess and treat individuals with mental health conditions safely and in accordance with evidence-based treatment recommendations. • Undergraduate psychology degrees in New Zealand are primarily research- and theory-focused, without substantial interpersonal or clinical skills training. • Insufficient training may lead to mismanagement of people with serious conditions such as suicide risk, psychosis, eating disorders, and personality disorders. • Associate psychologists may lack the ability to engage in essential therapeutic skills, such as validation, open-ended questioning, setting boundaries, and recognising when a case is beyond their competence. • Although there is some talk of associate psychologists seeing less complex people, it is extremely difficult to assess complexity at face value and there are indications that people in the proposed role will work across the range of complexity people face.  2. Lack of Appropriate Supervision: There is no clear reassurance that associate psychologists will be supervised by registered psychologists, despite the protected title of "psychologist." • Many psychologists in New Zealand are already stretched thin with high caseloads and complex cases, making adequate supervision difficult to guarantee. • There is no commitment that associate psychologists will work in teams with psychologists, further diminishing the structured, evidence-based, and ethically sound care that characterises our profession. • There is significant risk to the associate psychologists themselves when they work in mental health without extremely high levels of support and training. They can be taken advantage of, including financially as they may be seen as “cheaper” to hire.  • If supervision is delegated to other disciplines, this raises serious ethical and professional concerns about the appropriateness and oversight of psychological interventions delivered by under qualified personnel 3. Erosion of Professional Standards and Public Trust: The introduction of associate psychologists risks confusing the public about the expertise and qualifications of those providing mental health care. • Without stringent oversight, the reputation of the psychology profession may be compromised by individuals practising beyond their competencies. • Members of the public seeking psychological services may not fully understand the difference between a psychologist and an associate psychologist, potentially receiving suboptimal care. • The title “Associate Psychologist” risks misleading the public and diminishing the professional standing of fully qualified psychologists. If the intention is to create a support role within mental health services, alternative titles such as Mental Health Support Worker, Wellbeing Practitioner, or Therapy Assistant could be used. These titles would more accurately reflect the level of training and scope of practice, without creating confusion or undermining the qualifications required to practise as a psychologist. 4. Threat to Psychology Workforce Sustainability: There has been no commitment from Health NZ that associate psychologists will not be used to replace clinical psychologists or fill vacant psychologist FTEs in the public sector. This raises concerns about cost-cutting measures that devalue the profession and create a long-term workforce crisis. • Psychologists provide evidence-based treatments that are proven to be cost-effective in the long term, reducing the burden on the healthcare system by preventing relapse, hospitalisation, and chronic mental health issues. • In contrast, associate psychologists with limited training may not have the expertise to deliver these interventions effectively, potentially leading to poorer outcomes, increased service demand, and higher overall costs. • Practising psychologists play a critical role in training and supervising the next generation of psychologists, ensuring a sustainable and competent workforce. Weakening our profession by introducing underqualified roles could undermine this vital function. • Australia recently abandoned a similar proposal following strong opposition from professional bodies, citing concerns about patient safety and the devaluation of the psychology profession[7]. New Zealand must learn from this and reconsider the implementation of a role that could have long-lasting negative consequences for mental health care in this country.  The UK has two distinct roles relevant to this discussion: “Assistant Psychologist" and "Clinical Associate in Psychology" (CAPs). The role of “assistant psychologist” is not a separate scope of practice but rather a transitional role intended to provide work experience before higher levels of training. The role was never intended to provide direct, unsupervised clinical care or to serve as a substitute for registered psychologists. New Zealand risks misapplying this concept in a way that compromises the quality and safety of mental health care. Additionally, the UK requires assistant psychologists to receive at least 90 minutes of supervision per week, ensuring they do not work beyond their competencies. Their role is explicitly a stepping stone to further professional training rather than an alternative workforce solution. Clinical Associates in Psychology (CAPs) in the UK require an honours degree, an 18-month applied Master's training programme, restricted scope of practice, and intensive supervision. Notably, they do not hold the title of "psychologist." In contrast, the New Zealand proposal suggests a lower entry requirement (bachelor's degree), shorter training (12 months), broader scope, and the protected title of "psychologist." The risk of misapplying this model in New Zealand is significant, potentially compromising quality and safety in mental health care. We envision an Aotearoa that is safe and welcoming for vulnerable people, where people who need support can feel safe and contained by experienced psychologists. Unfortunately, the Government’s proposal falls significantly short of reaching that goal. By signing our petition, you are adding to a chorus of voices that tells the Government that we can do better, for all of our benefits!

This issue is undeniably important to New Zealand, especially in the aftermath of the Christchurch mosque shootings.  It is a matter which implicates the lives of many people including school children, vulnerable communities such as the Muslim community and the LGBTQ+ community, as well as those struggling with their mental health. By making it harder to access semi-automatic weapons, we are able to increase the safety of everyone.   It is clear from observing other countries, especially the United States, that unrestricted access to semi-automatic weapons leads to violence and division. While it may not seem likely that slight changes to gun laws in Aotearoa could have a large effect, one must remember two key points: firstly, that the Christchurch shooter obtained his weapon completely legally; and secondly, that the state of mental health support in Aotearoa is abysmal. Without treating this second point, something which the current government seems to have no real intention of doing, allowing even slightly looser access to semi-automatics is a massive safety risk. It provides a space for a dangerous weapon to leave the hands of an ordinary person and fall into the hands of somebody with ill intentions. Even if there are only non-regular incidents of gun violence following these law changes, the fate of the dead and injured will be in the government’s hands.  While the proposed changes are on the surface somewhat innocent - aiming to rectify the difficulty of some recreational gun users in carrying out their hobby - it carries a confusing sense of urgency and secrecy for a process which by all accounts should be taken as slowly, carefully, and yes, even bureaucratically as possible. Consultation should expand to include the opinions of the entirety of Aotearoa, not just select groups of individuals. I think it is naive to expect that these changes will only affect a small number of people. It would be unsurprising if this was only the beginning of a series of changes to gun laws in Aotearoa; Nicole Mckee, the Minister in charge of the reform, is a former gun lobbyist who may be interested in emulating the gun culture in the United States.  About me I am a year 13 student from Kapiti College who is concerned about gun safety in Aotearoa. I believe in maintaining a peaceful and safe society for everyone, regardless of their background or beliefs. As a young person in Aotearoa, I want to feel confident that the government is making decisions that prioritise the safety and well-being of all communities, rather than catering to a few special interest groups. Any changes to our gun laws must be done with full transparency and public consultation. I believe that by opening up the conversation, we can come to a solution that balances the needs of recreational gun users with the safety concerns of the wider population. I urge Minister Nicole Mckee and the coalition government to release the consultation document and ensure that any changes to our gun laws are made with the input of the public, the police, and those most affected by gun violence. Together, we can build a safer Aotearoa.

16 and 17 year olds are just as impacted by local political decisions as those over 18 and we will inherit the future kawekawe of those decisions. Public transport, infrastructure, community development, and a vast list of other local government issues will continue to affect us and future generations of young people. Despite the effects politics has, and will have, on us, we have no democratic say in their solutions. We are on the brink of making history, but we need your help! Every signature is a step towards a more inclusive democracy. Rangatahi are ready, willing, and capable to vote. We demonstrate this time and time again. It is time for our voices to be heard at local government elections. Sign our petition to bring the Bill to second reading and urge the incoming government to vote for rangatahi human rights. Don’t kill the Bill.

NO CUTS Wayne Brown’s Budget 2023/24 is proposing to cut funding to crucial community support services during a cost of living and climate crisis. The people of Auckland are deeply concerned about the proposed budget. We understand that the Council is facing financial challenges, but we urge Auckland Council to reconsider these cuts as they will have a severe impact on the community. “Cutting regional community focused initiatives … of all groups working with Māori, Pasifika, youth, refugee, new migrant and rainbow communities.” - Page 30, Te Wāhanga Tuatoru: Te Pūtea e Marohitia Ana, Annual Budget Proposal 2022/23. We can see the budget has targeted marginalized communities, yet does not suggest cuts to industry and business whatsoever. The proposed budget cuts will have far-reaching consequences for all Aucklanders, but especially our most vulnerable residents, including children, the elderly, the working poor, and those with disabilities. Cuts to climate change, social services, community venues, public transport, arts,and education will have a devastating impact on these communities, and protesters are determined to make their voices heard. The proposed cuts to community services, including libraries, community venues and centers, youth and homelessness, early childhood education, Arts and culture, water quality and public transport, will have a negative impact on the quality of life for many Auckland residents. These services are essential for the well-being of our community and provide opportunities for social interaction, education, and access to essential resources. Furthermore, the proposed cuts to environmental initiatives, including park maintenance and waste management, will have a detrimental effect on our environment. These initiatives are critical to the sustainability of our city and the protection of our natural environment and resources. We understand that difficult decisions must be made regarding the budget, but we urge the Council to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable. We believe that alternative solutions and a better budget is possible. The Auckland council’s feedback report suggested that the majority of Aucklanders reject this proposed budget, and it is not suited to serve Auckland residents. The sale of the airport shares is not necessary or helpful and will take Auckland backwards. The airport shares are an important revenue stream, the airport is increasing in value, and it is an asset that the Council can borrow against. The 18% shareholding is also an opportunity for public voice on the future of the airport, a strategic asset - and it is important that the Council holds onto public control in the face of climate and health emergencies. The Community Coalition against the Cuts demands that Auckland Council, Mayor and Councilors listen to Aucklanders. Consider and implement the voices of Aucklanders who took their time to give their feedback. We fully reject this proposed budget, and we demand the following: 1- NO CUTS TO REGIONAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES 2- INCREASE RATES & DEBT 3- NO SALE OF AIRPORT SHARES The super-rich must pay for this budget deficit, not the most vulnerable. We demand that any shortfall in the Council's books should be filled through increased rates on big business, and charges on luxury items such as private helicopters and super-yachts, not cuts which hit the poorest hardest. We need to be expanding services, not cutting them. We demand that the Council expands public transport, making buses and trains free and frequent, and takes more action on climate change amidst a climate crisis. We demand more funding to tackle poverty and homelessness. Therefore, we call on Auckland Council to reconsider the proposed budget cuts and to find alternative solutions that do not compromise the well-being of our community and our environment. We fully reject this budget we will not sit by quietly. We say, NO CUTS! Community Coalition Against Cuts

Everyone deserves to be kept safe online. But NZTech’s Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms does not go far enough to protect New Zealanders from the very real dangers of online harm. The Code aims to bring together social media platforms like Meta (which includes Facebook and Instagram), Google (including YouTube), TikTok, Amazon (including Twitch) and Twitter to set an industry standard for online safety in Aotearoa. The Signatories to the Code committed to provide annual reports on their efforts toward reducing risks and harms across a number of measures - a worthy goal, in theory. However there are very real problems with the Code as it currently exists. Our main concerns are: • The Code’s self-regulation is not credible. The Code fails to ensure independent oversight of the Signatories. While an ‘Oversight Board’ is being created, membership on that board is at the sole discretion of the social media companies and there are no credible safeguards to maintain or scrutinise the Board’s independence. Those impacted by these companies are not promised a voice nor the means to use it. • The Code isn’t focused on Aotearoa. We believe that the Code’s Signatories are seeking to benefit from our international reputation to influence global regulation. The Code invokes Te Ao Māori, but the content is generic, as are the proposed governance arrangements and the consultation process. There’s no mention of the specific challenges our communities face online nor how the Signatories are working to address those challenges. The initial global reports from the Signatories were very general statements of their global policies and many of the Signatories did not even provide minimal Aotearoa-specific data. • The Signatories’ community engagement has not been effective nor credible. This is particularly embodied by the inauthentic community engagement that has been performed. While many of the people at organisations like Netsafe and NZTech have done genuine and authentic work to try to engage with civil society to make the Code effective, and we do appreciate the mahi they have performed, they have been hamstrung by the Signatories’ decisions and objectives. This means while concerns and feedback have been carried back to the Signatories, they have not been taken on board nor implemented. That’s why New Zealanders need to come together to call for better protection. And that’s why the Coalition for Better Digital Policy, led by Inclusive Aotearoa Collective Tāhono, Amnesty International Aotearoa New Zealand and Tohatoha has been formed. Many of us have been constructively critiquing the Code since it was publicly released in 2022. As a group, we aim to enable robust, inclusive, and effective regulation of technology in Aotearoa, with a focus on upholding human rights and preserving the benefits technology can provide us. Our shared experiences have convinced us that the current processes being used will not make the Code truly effective. We are calling on NZTech and the Signatories to work with us to develop a process that meets the needs of everyone at risk of harm from these companies. Add your voice by signing the petition to call on NZTech to #FixTheCode.

It's invasive. RPNow requires all users to provide webcam access to their bedroom or private spaces and that data is collected and assessed by staff who do not work for the University, and that data is at high risk of being hacked or breached. It's inequitable. Students who cannot afford a laptop with webcam, microphone and those who do not have a strong internet connection can't access the examinations that they paid for. Students may not be able to book limited university spaces to sit these exams, or able to provide a safe quiet space at home to sit them. It's not culturally competent. Many of our tauira live in whanau based situations, that don't provide for silent or private spaces to take examinations at home. These students will fail if the microphone detects other voices speaking. It's just plain wrong. Students will go to other Universities that don't invade their privacy by implementing invasive and unsafe, low trust systems. Students have a right to be heard, and their voice matters. Universities should not be implementing significant changes to assessment without first consulting with students.

People in Aotearoa want the foundations of our communities to be resilient and sustainable for ourselves and for our grandchildren. We want our homes, our ways of getting around, the grids our power depends on, the pipes our water runs through, and the lines that underpin our communication to be reliable. Most of us want the work we do to make a difference in our communities and care for our beloved natural environment. The destruction from Cyclone Gabrielle and climate-charged flooding in Auckland have shown the urgent need to strengthen those foundations. Decades of underinvestment in essential infrastructure by people in successive governments has left our communities vulnerable. Instead core public development has been contracted out into sporadic projects. This has diverted funding into corporations’ pockets and created unstable employment for workers. The piecemeal approach has also led to the loss of the public sector knowledge that is needed to respond to large scale challenges. We need new institutions designed to do what works to make a just transition from dependency on fossil fuels and high-emission industries. Institutions that can respond to immediate needs, plan for long-term and large-scale change, and embrace Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the leadership of tangata whenua. A Ministry of Green Works would: - Deliver a mass scale build of beautiful, sustainable public housing to reduce the shortage of homes - Roll out an integrated network of passenger rail - Bring resources and support to community-led adaptation and in places that are now vulnerable to climate disasters - Train up the next generation of apprenticeships and essential workers for green infrastructure that is resilient in the face of future challenges The Ministry of Green Works will support Te Tiriti-based governance by resourcing tino rangatiratanga so that hapū can lead in this space as well. It will not be able to take land and could also play a role in recommending that land be transferred to Māori supervision as part of good environmental management. What we build, whether it be marae, public transport or storm water drainage, has the power to nourish our environment and reduce inequities. But we need the government to put a Ministry of Green Works in place now to build the future our grandchildren deserve. Further reading here: https://apo.org.au/node/315499

As a colonial power, New Zealand exploited Pacific Islands including Banaba, part of modern-day Kiribati, where 90% of the island’s surface was mined by the British Phosphate Commission – jointly owned by the British, Australian, and New Zealand governments – from the early 1900s to the end of the 1970s. This extractive practice left behind barren and uninhabitable land, resulting in the forced resettlement of Banabans to Rabi island in Fiji in 1945. To this day, Banabans on Rabi face discrimination as a nation of people falling between jurisdictions with none wanting to take responsibility.

Meeting the three demands of our petition would help combat the labor exploitation and sometimes outright trafficking endemic within venues in adult entertainment in New Zealand. The reasoning for our demands are further explained below, but more information can be found on our website www.firedupstilettos.com, and on Employment New Zealand’s website. 1) As is clearly outlined in Employment New Zealand’s guide for determining whether someone is an independent contractor or employee, independent contractors have control over our working hours, control over services we provide and how we provide them, and may work for multiple principles at the same time. We have collected contracts from numerous adult entertainment venues in Aotearoa New Zealand which violate our independent contractor status by proposing dancers pay exorbitant fines for not being at work at a time management decides, or leaving before management wants us to. They have introduced fines that compel us to take our underwear off at a certain time on stage, and keep it off while walking around to collect tips. The most egregious fees prohibit “rudeness” (as determined solely by management) toward management or customers, and “demanding” customers pay us for our labour (also known as asking for a tip–one of the only ways we get paid). The contracts also compel a dancer to agree not to provide services of a similar nature to any third party, allowing them to monopolize and control our labour. These clauses create an atmosphere of dictatorial control by management over dancers that violates our status as independent contractors. We are willing to sacrifice labour security in order to have freedom–we will no longer tolerate having neither. 2) The use of fines and bonds is a standard tactic used by adult entertainment venues in order to coerce compliant behavior from dancers, and they promote self-evident power imbalances that can range from inconvenience to outright labour trafficking. This labour trafficking can occur when dancers are fined by management for a larger amount than they have actually earned, meaning they then owe their employer (who is the one with the power to implement the fine) payment on this debt. Some clubs claim this never happens, which is both untrue and beside the point: the fact that we are afraid it will happen means management is in a position of incredible coercive control, which is dangerous. Although this is in no way unique among venues in our industry, we have included an example of Calendar Girls Wellington’s contract, including the detailed fines. These fines make us afraid. We are afraid to stand up to management for fear of losing all our income, and afraid to stand up to customers who violate our boundaries for fear we will be blamed and go home owing the club money because we dared say no. All fines are coercive and unethical, but threatening dancers with such a huge fine for “rudeness” toward a customer in particular is a safety issue that increases our likelihood of experiencing sexual violence at work: an integral part of any kind of adult entertainment is being able to decide our own boundaries over our own bodies, and which customers we do business with. Coercion and exploitation in adult entertainment is not inherent to the work, but rather to business practices that control when, how, and with whom we do it. 3) As previously stated, independent contractors do not receive a wage: dancers only make what we earn from private dances and tips. In order to gain the right to work in a club, we give a percentage of our earnings to the venue; the proportion of this split has continued to increase in favor of the clubs, creating a condition in which dancers are working more for a smaller percentage of the fee. There is currently no regulation on how much venues can take from us, which has led to what we allege are unfair conditions. The percentage taken by the venue varies throughout adult entertainment in New Zealand, but many extract anywhere from 50-60% of the list price for services (meaning we only earn 39.6%-50% of what the customer has paid for our services), and 20% of tips (meaning we keep 80% of the tips customers give us). We think this division is deeply unfair, but since there are few adult entertainment venues in each city, the clubs are able to set prices so we aren’t able to seek better conditions in another venue. We need industry regulation that sets a limit on how much venues can extract from our profits: we propose the venue is not allowed to take more than 35% of the list price for services, and no more than the 20% already in place for tips.

Our Whangarei  local body elections currently use the First Past the Post (FPP) voting system. If the candidate we vote for does not make the threshold, our votes are "wasted". The Single Transferable Vote (STV) system will allow us  freedom of choice to rank our candidates and still elect someone in of our choice without  "wasting" votes. When our votes are guaranteed to count like this, vote wastage and vote splitting is eliminated.

I am a FIRST Union delegate and bus driver at NZ Bus, and I am launching this petition calling for three important protections for bus drivers at work following a spate of violent attacks by passengers around the country, including being assaulted myself this month at while work in Auckland. I am a trained health and safety representative, and recently I previously issued my employer with a Provisional Improvement Notice (PIN) following increasing assaults on his colleagues. The risk of assault by passengers seems to have increased in recent years, especially during and immediately after the Covid-19 pandemic. My fellow bus drivers have been physically harmed, subjected to racist abuse and just about everything else you can possibly think of going wrong involving passengers. Driving a bus is about much more than just driving the vehicle. Drivers in other transport jobs like freight and logistics don’t have the added stress and responsibility of making sure passengers are safe and on time to their locations, and they don’t have to deal with the consequences of antisocial behaviour and fare evasion. Other transport workers often paid much more than us bus drivers are. Bus drivers are not punching bags. We are not a person to take out your frustration on or to blame for wider grievances about public transport in your city. We are having to take leave from work, lose income, attend hearings and deal with police over the assaults that happen to us on a weekly or even daily basis, and it is not good enough. We bus drivers are sick of doing their best for passengers and being verbally, racially and physically attacked for it. All bus drivers deserve to feel safe on the job, and feel respected at our place of work. After all, we're carrying the most precious cargo — the people of our community.

This bill would disestablish the Children's Commissioner and will result in a weakening of independent monitoring of Oranga Tamariki and effective advocacy for children and young people. Tracie Shipton, CEO of VOYCE, shared concerns that “The Government has not listened to a single recommendation from young people with lived experience on this Bill. These young people have been effectively silenced, and the new systems outlined by the Bill is designed to further muffle and weaken their voices". We join with VOYCE and care experienced young people in calling for this bill to be stopped.