Responsible leaders welcome advice from experts when they are creating laws and policies. They know good decision making means planning for the long term, considering diverse points of view and making evidence based decisions. This is also key to a healthy democracy. Which is why Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour’s targeting and harassment of people of academics and officials is so concerning. The Prime Minister has the responsibility to ensure the conduct of Ministers of the Cabinet is fitting of their office and inline with the Cabinet Manual.  The Deputy Prime Minister’s deliberate targeting of academics and the exposure of Christchurch Council staff to ridicule by comparing them to Russian President Vladimir Putin, following their opinions on the Regulatory Standards Bill, appears to be a direct breach of the Cabinet Manual’s standards of conduct. It’s a blatant attempt to stifle academic freedom and any dissenting opinion. For the Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour to lead this online harassment campaign is concerning, as such actions could incite behaviour that spills into real-world violence. This is irresponsible and a clear breach of public trust. We expect our leaders to keep us safe, not throw us into harm’s way. Such behaviour by the Deputy Prime Minister compromises the safety and wellbeing of the targeted individuals and sets a dangerous precedent for how dissenting voices in our society are treated. It also breaches sections 2.53 and 2.56 of the Cabinet Manual. As Prime Minister and Head of the Cabinet, we urge you to immediately investigate this matter and address this serious breach of the Cabinet Manual.  We expect our officials to display the highest standards of conduct and ensure that all members of our community can contribute to public debate without fear of harassment or intimidation. An official letter to this effect has already been sent to Luxon - sign this petition if you want to add your power behind the call!  

Why we want Aotearoa to stay incinerator-free Incinerators are a serious health hazard Incinerators release highly toxic dioxins, heavy metals, and PFAS, among other pollutants. These are some of the most toxic substances known to science, and can cause things like cancer, damage to the nervous system and organs, birth defects and infertility! Would you want to be breathing, drinking and eating this stuff?  Incinerators still need landfills Incinerators do not stop the need for landfills. The ash, which can be as much as a third of the total amount of rubbish that went in, has to be landfilled and handled as hazardous waste. Along with that, some stuff simply can't be burnt ever because of its toxicity, or because the material simply isn’t burnable.  Incinerators are an economic loser The hype around incinerators suggests they will provide lots of jobs and economic benefits to the communities they are built in. But, for every job an incinerator provides, activities that actually stop the waste before it’s created - like recycling, composting, reuse and repair - provide hundreds more jobs and local economic activity.  Incinerators pollute air, land and water Even the most sophisticated modern incinerators release harmful substances out of their chimneys and into the ash and wastewater, leaving a toxic legacy for those spaces and ecosystems for generations to come. The toxic ash has to go somewhere - mostly to a specialised landfill, where the pollutants can leach out. Incinerators are a disaster for the climate In 2024 the BBC found that incineration is just as bad for the climate as coal power, and five times more polluting than the average unit of UK energy. New Zealand reports have also found that incinerators will spew out far more carbon than landfills, especially as more organic waste gets composted instead of landfilled to meet New Zealand’s methane reduction targets.  Incinerators keep the waste train going Incinerators need 20 to 30 years of burning as much rubbish as they possibly can to justify the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to build and run them. Imagine if all that money was invested in smart zero waste projects instead? What a waste!    Would you want a dirty incinerator in your community? For a future where the earth's resources are valued, where people have opportunities to do meaningful zero waste work, and where we know our air, water, soils and food is safe… Let's Keep Aotearoa Incinerator Free! FAQ Should we follow Europe’s example? Europe’s incinerators are not what they’re cracked up to be, and are fast becoming yesterday’s technology. These days Europe is retreating from burning rubbish because it is harming their climate and waste reduction, reuse and recycling goals. For example, Denmark has invested heavily in incinerators but now generates more waste per capita than any other country in Europe. They recently announced a plan to close down 30% of the country's incinerators in order to get their greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation under control. Wales and Scotland have also banned any new incinerators being built, and England is considering it too. And the EU no longer considers incinerators eligible for climate-friendly investment. What about technologies with fancy names like pyrolysis and gasification?  Despite all the hype, these technologies have a horrendous track record of failure across Europe and elsewhere. They might be OK for clean, organic materials like forestry slash, but add anything else and they create toxins as bad or worse than incinerators.  Aren’t incinerators generating much needed power? While companies like to sell these technologies as ‘waste to energy’, they not only produce dirty, non-renewable energy, but they are extremely inefficient. A study from 2023 found that European incinerators are only able to capture a small proportion of the energy they burn - roughly 25% at best, compared to around 35% for coal power, and 55% for natural gas. Zero waste - is it really achievable? Absolutely! Zero waste is not just about the literal goal of achieving ‘zero’; it's as much a practical toolkit and guidebook to drastically reducing waste across our communities starting with preventing the creation of waste in the first place. It is well-established, with an extensive evidence-base and a huge range of real life options already being implemented in communities all over the world right now. Check out the mahi of groups like Para Kore, Zero Waste Aotearoa, Zero Waste Europe, and GAIA for some inspiration!

This is about the integrity of our culture, our right to protest, and the deep contradiction in how Māori identity is celebrated when it’s convenient, but suppressed when it’s powerful. If I were explaining it to a friend, I’d say: Bro, imagine our people being stood down in Parliament for doing haka, a sacred expression of who we are; during a time where it really counted!. Meanwhile, the All Blacks perform haka on the world stage, being celebrated and paid for it, that’s the same haka, that’s the same tikanga.  It hurts because it shows our culture is only palatable when it entertains, not when it resists, and if we don’t call that out, we’re letting the world think it’s okay to separate Māori culture from Māori struggle. I care because haka is not just a performance, it’s protest, it’s whakapapa, it’s survival, it's Māori.  If we let it be used without context or conscience, we’re letting go of something sacred, I’m not okay with that. It hurts my heart as a Māori to hear the silence from the All Blacks, they have a responsibility under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and as kaihaka to use their privilege and speak up. 

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

Aotearoa should be a place where people who are in need can access hospitals and get timely treatment, where staff are supported and properly resourced to give quality care. We have the opportunity to ensure that the most medically vulnerable people in our communities are properly supported through their journeys to improved health and wellbeing. New Zealand is facing a health crisis. People are suffering, and some are dying, because they can't access the treatment they need. Our hospitals need to be rebuilt, better resourced and better staffed. New Zealanders deserve a healthcare system that doesn't leave them waiting for months or years just to get the treatment they need; and medical professionals deserve to work in an environment that enables them to deliver the care their patients need and deserve. “We have over a thousand patients that are waiting for either a first specialist appointment or a follow-up appointment. I've never seen that number of patients waiting to be seen." — Dr. Claudia Hays, head of the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department at Nelson Marlborough Health [1] “Certainly I have seen patients that I believe their disease has gone from curable to incurable during that waiting time." — Dr Suzanne Beuker, senior doctor and consultant for the Urology Department at Nelson Marlborough Health [1] “Someone put my life at risk by changing my diagnosis. This could’ve damn near killed me.” — Daniel Walker, Nelson patient whose nine-week wait likely increased the spread of his testicular cancer [2] The Government needs to build facilities that are fit for purpose for our aging and growing population. Despite the growing crisis, there is a lack of action. We need a bipartisan approach to healthcare that resolves these issues once and for all. The public needs transparency, information and engagement regarding investigations and reports on these issues; and in particular the independent investigation at Nelson Hospital. Sign this petition and together we can hold the government to account and make sure our hospitals are resourced enough to help our family and friends in need. 

  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 petition does not argue “for” or “against” genetic modification, mRNA medicine or the Gene Technology Bill itself. Our concern is that everyone—farmers, families, scientists, and everyday citizens—deserves adequate time to assess how this Bill could: • Reshape our agriculture industry and threaten the 100% Pure reputation upon which our exports rely. • Allow more glyphosate in “Round-up ready” GM crops, negatively impacting our waterways, honey bees, and animal products. • Introduce “emergency” genetic therapies without thorough public scrutiny, raising questions about medical autonomy and national sovereignty. IF THIS BILL IS TRULY BENEFICIAL • It will still be beneficial after 90 days of additional fair public debate. • Rushing it through in just eight weeks disrespects our largest export sector and compromises democratic transparency. BY SIGNING THIS PETITION, YOU CALL ON THE GOVERNMENT TO: 1. Grant an immediate extension of the Gene Technology Bill’s deadline for at least 90 days. 2. Provide clear information so all New Zealanders can fully grasp the Bill’s ramifications. 3. Honour fair and transparent governance by giving us the time to engage, ask hard questions, make informed submissions and consult our peers. No matter where you stand on genetic modification, we all deserve the right to weigh the evidence and protect our environment, our economy, and our medical freedoms. Extend the Say—90 days is not too much to ask. YOU CAN CALL OR FORWARD THIS LETTER TO YOUR MP Your MP will want to know your position, no matter which party they serve.  Call your MP’s office or copy and paste this petition and email it. You can your MP’s email address in the first link below. ADDITONAL INFORMATION & REFERENCES https://www.beehive.govt.nz/ministers https://bills.parliament.nz/v/6/22059628-b0cc-4931-5e07-08dd18a12bfb?Tab=history https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0110/7.0/LMS1009752.html

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/ 

Aotearoa New Zealand should be a place where young people can experience life and make memories while being safe and protected. Wellington should be a city where our young people can have fun in a safe environment, without the fear of harm.  Sadly, that’s not the case. A recent Salient survey revealed 75% of students have felt unsafe in a Wellington nightclub, and many highlighted concerning safety issues they'd faced travelling to and from the city at night and the lack of safe transport options. [2,3] “I can’t walk on Courtney without feeling like I need to constantly be watching my back” -Rachel (22) Young people and our communities know what the issues are and what solutions will work for us. That's why we want WCC to work with us - especially those that are often the target of harm such as our ethnic communities, queer communities, disabled communities and more.  We are asking them to: • Commit to a project for young people's safety and wellbeing • Centre young people's leadership by co-creating it with us • Provide funding to enable young people's involvement and participation in the process  • Funding pathways for intercultural cohesion through education and community building We truly believe that a wide-scale cross-community project would be a great first step for youth wellbeing and safety. We would start by engaging with communities on things that impact our safety - like transport, de-escalation skills, nightlife culture, safe spaces, accessibility, and cultural attitudes.  In the meantime, there are already some solutions the WCC could action now, such as: • Increase funding for Take10 to include more safe spaces in and around Cuba street - Courtenay place area • Require all liquor licence holders to ensure their staff are trained in de-escalation training • Create teams of trained professionals that can go from venue to venue and make sure that people in need are cared for, including providing drug and alcohol harm reduction information and support • Train up more wardens from affected communities to be present in the inner city areas over the weekend nights, to help increase safety • Free and accessible transport  • Free wi-fi and public accessible charging stations  Why now? Mayor Tory Whanau has asked for a refreshed city safety plan now that the Pōneke Promise is coming to an end.[6] We want to make sure the new plan includes a project focussed on the wellbeing and safety of our young people, and reducing harm in the inner city.  In late 2020, local communities raised concerns about the safety in central Wellington. At the start of 2021 the Wellington Alliance Against Sexual Violence - a coalition of youth-led organisations hosted a rally on Courtney place calling on WCC and its partners to prioritise sexual violence prevention. [3,4] WCC listened and created Pōneke Promise which widened its focus on making ‘central Wellington safe, vibrant and welcoming”[5] Now that a new plan is being made, we need to make sure WCC listens to our communities again and delivers what we as young people need - Safer streets! Join us and together we can create a better future for young people! Acknowledgment We would like to acknowledge Luke Smith. Who we lost too early and who brought us all together to fight for a better future for our young people. Because of Luke Smith we are demanding that the wellbeing and the safety of our young people are put as priority by the Wellington City Council.  This petition we created in consultation with Luke Smith’s family. If you would like to support the family in bringing their son back home to South African for his funeral please click here for their givealittle. Interview with bFM: https://95bfm.com/bcast/get-action-protect-our-youth-make-wellington%E2%80%99s-streets-safe-w-rachel-jaboon-from-vasda  References 1. https://www.salient.org.nz/post/safety-and-harassment-in-wellington-s-clubs 2. https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350352650/unwanted-groping-part-student-culture-city-bars  3. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/there-is-no-excuse-hundreds-turn-out-to-protest-against-sexual-violence-in-wellington/7AEJB5VQY7BJ6VB67MEFU47BVU/ 4. https://wellington.govt.nz/-/media/community-support-and-resources/community-safety/files/sexual-violence-prevention/sexual-violence-prevention-roadmap.pdf 5. https://wellington.govt.nz/community-support-and-resources/safety-in-wellington/the-poneke-promise  6. https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350356298/inner-city-safety-plan-be-updated-after-students-report-feeling-unsafe

Everyone should have access to decent, secure and permanently affordable housing. But right now, many people in our communities are experiencing homelessness – living on couches, in cars, in overcrowded houses and in unhealthy and unsafe conditions.  For too long people in government have chosen not to allocate resources to public housing, while prioritising policies that encourage property speculators to buy up huge amounts of houses. As a result home ownership and access to decent, secure and affordable housing has become harder and harder for everyday people. This Government's recent decision to make access to emergency housing more difficult, is increasing the harm and risk of homelessness in our communities[1].  These policy changes were able to be implemented because there is currently no legislative responsibility on government agencies to support someone who is at-risk of homelessness.  In the midst of a housing crisis, where there is already not enough decent and stable housing available within our communities, this Government has chosen to stall public housing builds across the country[2], cancel funding for youth housing services[3], and reduce access to emergency housing. These policies push the burden of responsibility for homelessness on individuals, rather than addressing the complex and systemic challenges that enable homelessness to occur. Together these policies will deepen the housing crisis Aotearoa is facing. Duty to Assist legislation would begin to address the systemic issues that prevent people from getting support when they need it. It would place the burden of responsibility back onto the system, and ensure that if you or I experience homelessness, or were at risk of homelessness, we would be provided with the support we need in our moment of crisis. In Wales, Duty to Assist legislation has been successful in the prevention of homelessness, through supporting people to remain in their housing and access the support services they need. The legislation also requires local authorities to provide emergency housing as a temporary measure while they fulfil their ‘duty to secure accommodation’ which means they must continue to find permanent and stable homes for people.[4] In Aotearoa, Duty to Assist legislation, alongside a commitment to increasing public housing, would get us on a path out of the housing crisis and towards a future where everyone has a place to call home. Supporting Organizations: AAAP Kick Back VOYCE – Whakarongo Mai ZEAL Just Speak Ara Taiohi System Change Aotearoa FASD-CAN References: [1] Government was warned emergency housing crackdown could increase homelessness. RNZ, 20 August 2024 https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/525607/government-was-warned-emergency-housing-crackdown-could-increase-homelessness  [2] The impact of tougher emergency housing policies in two regions. 1News, 15 September 2024 https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/09/15/the-impact-of-tougher-emergency-housing-policies-in-two-regions/  [3] Social worker fears young Kiwis being abandoned by Government after transitional youth housing funds reallocated. Newshub, 05 June 2024 https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2024/06/social-worker-fears-young-kiwis-being-abandoned-by-government-after-transitional-youth-housing-funds-reallocated.html  [4] Overview of the council’s duties to people experiencing homelessness in Wales. Shelter CYMRU, 7 March 2024 https://sheltercymru.org.uk/housing-advice/homelessness/help-from-the-council/new-homelessness-laws/ 

In November last year mayor Phil Mauger called for a ceasefire. We ask now that Christchurch city Council go further and follow the ruling of the International Court of Justice and divest itself from the genocidal regime.  The Israeli bombardment and siege of the people of Palestine only continues with the support of other states. The highest court in the world has called on all of us to divest from the genocidal occupation. We ask our representatives to follow international law; Christchurch City Council is obligated to speak out against the genocide, and refuse to support the products of the Israeli apartheid regime.

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) and New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) are New Zealand’s spy agencies. While they are domestically-focused, they can produce intelligence of relevance to international conflicts. Associate Professor Treasa Dunworth, Dr Max Harris and Vinod Bal are asking the IGIS to open up an inquiry into the GCSB’s and NZSIS’ compliance with New Zealand law, and standards of propriety in relation to possible intelligence-sharing that has contributed to the commission of international crimes by Israel in Gaza. They believe there is a plausible case that the intelligence-sharing actions of the GCSB and NZSIS, in relation to what has occurred in Gaza, breach New Zealand law as well as standards of propriety. They are concerned that intelligence is being gathered by the GCSB and NZSIS which may be shared with Israel, either directly through authorised providing of intelligence or indirectly, through New Zealand’s position in the Five Eyes alliance. For example, New Zealand gives intelligence to the United States and the United States can then pass on that intelligence to Israel. If that is so, then they believe that this intelligence might be supporting the commission of international crimes in the current Gaza conflict. In their request, they begin by setting out the key legal provisions and how they ought to be interpreted. They consider past Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security reports and lessons to be drawn from them. They address the background to Israel’s actions in Gaza, credible reports about what is occurring, and possible New Zealand connections to those actions. Attention then turns to why the IGIS should exercise his discretion to open up and inquiry of this kind. The IGIS has an important role in ensuring that the New Zealand spy agencies act in a way that is compliant with New Zealand law and within the bounds of propriety. It is hoped that the IGIS will discharge this duty by opening up such a request. Read the request document