Political leaders set an example for society, including young people. How they campaign shapes what we see as acceptable in public life. We’re calling for political parties and candidates to uphold honesty, respect, transparency and integrity, and to campaign in ways that strengthen rather than undermine our democracy. 

We see the impact of economic abuse and family violence in our day-to-day work. We support victim-survivors and try to mitigate the harm caused by people who perpetrate economic abuse. But we often fight losing battles, because New Zealand’s systems allow economic abuse to happen, all too often with no recourse for addressing the harm caused.  Economic abuse is a form of family violence that uses coercive, controlling, and threatening behaviour to restrict or remove a person’s financial freedom, autonomy, and security. It is experienced in close personal relationships, particularly intimate partner relationships, and often occurs alongside other family violence behaviours. Research shows that 15% of ever-partnered women have experienced economic abuse. [1] Despite the prevalence of economic abuse, it is rarely recognised and responded to as a form of family violence. Yet the impact can be devastating. Without access to money, victim-survivors lack resources to escape violent partners and remain independent. We estimate it costs around $10,000 to separate from an abusive partner [2]. Even if they can escape, when faced with the threat of poverty, women may choose to stay.  When victim-survivors are able to leave, many are forced to carry coerced debt, ruined credit and financial harm long after the relationship ends. This is violence. We need to stop treating it like a hardship or budgeting problem. New Zealand laws and systems that don’t acknowledge and respond to this form of abuse adequately are lagging behind other countries. The United Kingdom and Australia have focused on amending legislation, policies, and processes to better support victim-survivors of economic abuse over the last five to ten years [3]. In contrast, Te Aorerekura and its associated Action Plans to date have no mention of, or response to, economic abuse [4]. Economic abuse is a form of family violence under the Family Violence Act 2018, but this only applies to the granting of a protection order (and ancillary property or furniture order) [5]. Economic abuse is not an isolated issue; it is a long-term driver of gender inequality and intergenerational harm in Aotearoa and needs to be treated as such. Policy recommendations have been developed in close partnership with the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, and are endorsed by around 80 other organisations from across the family violence, financial, and gender equity sectors. For the full list of policy changes recommended, see our website at https://thisisviolence.co.nz References: 1. Economic Abuse by An Intimate Partner and Its Associations with Women’s Socioeconomic Status and Mental Health, by Brooklyn M. Mellar, Janet Lynn Fanslow, Pauline J. Gulliver, and Tracey K. D. McIntosh. Economic Abuse by An Intimate Partner and Its Associations with Women’s Socioeconomic Status and Mental Health - Brooklyn M. Mellar, Janet Lynn Fanslow, Pauline J. Gulliver, Tracey K. D. McIntosh, 2024 2. Financial barriers to exiting abusive relationships, by Good Shepherd NZ Report: Financial barriers to exiting abusive relationships - Good Shepherd NZ 3. For example: Family Violence Flexible Support Packages. Family Violence Flexible Support Packages | vic.gov.au 4. Te Aorerekura Action Plan 2025-2030, Breaking the Cycle of Violence. The Centre for Family Violence and Sexual Violence Prevention.  Breaking the Cycle of Violence | The Centre for Family Violence and Sexual Violence Prevention 5. See Family Violence Act 2018, 11(e). Family Violence Act 2018 | New Zealand Legislation 

In New Zealand, too many people live in cold, damp and mouldy rental homes despite the Healthy Homes Standards. Poor housing affects health, education, employment and wellbeing, while also placing avoidable costs on families and the wider health system. A healthy home should not depend on how confident a tenant feels about challenging their landlord, or whether a landlord chooses to comply. ““Our walls are crying.” — A whānau living in a private rental in Auckland.” The current system relies heavily on landlords declaring their own compliance with the Healthy Homes Standards, with limited independent auditing. This creates a significant gap between what a property is reported to comply with and what tenants may actually experience. The 2026 Aotearoa Renters’ Survey, conducted by Renters United and ActionStation and involving 3,310 renters across Aotearoa, found that 18.7% of respondents believed their home was probably not up to Healthy Homes Standards. More concerningly, while many respondents had been given evidence or verbal reassurance that their home was Healthy Homes compliant, 42.7% still reported problems with mould, dampness or draughts.[1] We call for independent Healthy Homes certification and regular compliance checks for rental properties. Independent assessment would provide greater assurance that a property meets the standards, strengthen accountability, and give tenants greater confidence that the home they are renting is genuinely healthy. Together, we can work towards an Aotearoa where every person can live in housing that is safe, warm, dry and healthy. Please sign and share this petition. References  1. https://rentersunited.org.nz/aotearoa-renters-survey/ Further reading:   1. https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/about-tenancy-services/news/rotorua-landlord-ordered-to-pay-exemplary-damages-issued-with-3-year-restraining-order/  2. Mould growing on shoes raises questions over Healthy Homes compliance  3. Tenants still battling mould and damp, despite healthy homes standards compliance | RNZ  4. Landlord who rented out unlawful sheds and shipping containers ordered to pay exemplary damages and refund rent » Tenancy Services  5. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/1120121/worst-property-managers-named-and-shamed-in-new-report  6. https://www.consumer.org.nz/consumer-rights-and-campaigns/your-rights/property/assessing-rental-health-are-landlords-complying-with-the-standards  Tips for living in a healthy home https://www.tenancy.govt.nz/forms-and-resources/healthy-homes-standards-toolkit-for-tenants 

By eight, 35% of NZ children experience a family member’s death - for 1% of children, that’s a parent. Yet, many of us don’t know what to say when someone dies – often we say nothing. We at GESA believe grief education can normalise grief, reduce fear, build emotional literacy, strengthen peer support and reduce isolation. England requires grief education in its national curriculum from Sept 2026 – we believe NZ should also prepare young people for the losses that are inevitably part of life.  Please sign and share this petition with all your contacts and networks. It takes only a minute and would benefit the thousands of tamariki and rangatahi who are bereaved each year.

Our community will thrive when we have strong connections between our whenua, our people and our housing. This means that as affordable homes are being built, we need to ensure whānau can access parks and playgrounds to gather and play.  The Tāmaki community (Glen Innes, Panmure, Point England) is experiencing a government-led gentrification process throughout our community. The Tāmaki Regeneration Company (jointly owned by Auckland Council and central government) is increasing housing from 2,500 to 10,000 houses within a 5 km2 area; this doesn't include the private housing being built in the area. Within the small block that Torino Reserve is on, there is a Simplicity Building complex on 2 Torino St which has 69 apartments, over 150 Tāmaki Regeneration homes completed, and 4 more Tāmaki Regeneration developments planned.  More good quality, warm homes are supported for our community, but this must happen alongside good public planning which retains and expands green spaces which provide spaces for all of those whānau to be able to bring their tamariki, come together and play.  Torino Reserve provides green infrastructure to support existing and new whānau who live in the community. Torino Reserve has been an important space in our community since it was built in the 1950s. Its history includes being the nursery of the trees that are scattered around all of the old state houses in Tāmaki, and is now a dedicated overland flow path to divert floodwaters. It is a thoroughfare for local students, pedestrians and cyclists, and has been used for recreation for many years. Our community doesn’t want to be consulted anymore. We want collaboration and a seat at the table to be able to decide what happens in our community. We are calling on Auckland Council to work with the community of Tāmaki, to create a plan that builds more homes and protects the green spaces we need for our community and whānau to thrive.    

AI is being pushed upon us at break-neck speed, not only as an attractive option but also unchosen and without our consent. AI has a heavy environmental cost and is derived through the exploitation of physical and intellectual resources that society has not agreed should be used in this way. When an AI Overview is automatically generated by our search, albeit without our having requested it, we are made to be complicit in this technology. For these reasons, we believe that automated AI functions are unethical and should be removed. People should have to choose AI every time they want it, thus encouraging more awareness and personal accountability in digital activity and reigning in the wasteful blanket approach that is currently in place. The AI Overview An AI overview uses ten times as much energy as a traditional search. [1] With many millions of searches made per day in New Zealand, it certainly makes a difference in terms of energy consumption, whether it is a traditional or an AI search that takes place.  The AI overview was put into action as an automatic add-on without asking permission of users and there is no easy way to turn it off. This contributes to the normalisation and forced adoption of AI and the knock-on effect of justifying the ‘need’ for data centres. Environmental harm Data centres are required to store data and process searches.[3] Data centres are proliferating rapidly worldwide fuelled by the needs of the AI explosion. There are already in the range of 10,000 data centres around the world.[4] The new data centre consented for New Zealand’s deep south alone will cost NZ$3.5 billion.[5] Who is this actually benefitting? Data centres destroy environments, use enormous amounts of power and water, contribute negatively to the climate crisis and are generally not wanted by the communities in which they are built.[6] The AI overview is wasteful of resources so although it appears to be “free,” in fact, “someone pays” —  and it is the environment and the people living in areas around data centres, as well as anyone who pays a power bill, as the demand for resources is expected to raise the price of power [7]. The AI overview is made to be effortless on the part of the consumer, adding to the creation of a habit and a dependency, and the illusion that it has no cost. Theft of intellectual and artistic property AI capacity is made possible through theft of intellectual and artistic property as the thinkers, writers, scientists and artists of the world who created the content and discoveries that AI is trained on were not asked for permission [8], just as we were not asked if we wanted to use this “service.” By unintentionally initiating the process, we are made to be complicit against our will. We are added to the statistic of AI users that contributes to the impression of acceptance and uptake of the technology by the population and, once again, to the justification of the growing need for data centres. Misinformation  Needless to say, the AI Overview is not always correct but will frequently be taken at face value putting people at risk of harm from false and misleading information. Health professionals are just one of many groups who have expressed concern over misinformation provided by the AI Overview, and have cited numerous examples that could lead to serious health consequences. [9] This is why we are calling on our representatives to create frameworks and policies that will protect our right to choose our impact as individuals and consumers, and protect our communities and our environment. The AI Overview should be an option not a must.  Sign the petition and share it with your friends and family. References  1. Google AI Search Uses 10x More Energy Than Standard Searches | Sustainability Magazine   2. Explainer: What is a data centre and why is everyone freaking out now? | RNZ   3. Datacentres are a ticking timebomb. We must make sure AI’s benefits outweigh the costs | Nicki Hutley | The Guardian   4. ‘A lot of red flags’: plans for New Zealand’s first AI datacentre spark concern as locals demand greater transparency  5. Under a cloud: the growing resentment against the massive datacentres sprouting across Australian cities | Computing | The Guardian  6. Under a cloud: the growing resentment against the massive datacentres sprouting across Australian cities | Computing | The Guardian  7. AI data centres are booming in Australia - but at what cost? 8. AI, Copyright, and the Law: The Ongoing Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights  9. Google AI Overviews put people at risk of harm with misleading health advice

Smoking and similar nicotine products have been shown to have significant detriments to an individual’s health. Yet, smoking is still under-regulated in New Zealand. New Zealand is committed to a “Smokefree 2025”, with under 5% of New Zealanders smoking by the year 2025; this deadline came and went with 8.3% of New Zealanders being smokers and 6.8% smoking daily in 2024-2025 according to the New Zealand Health Survey (Ministry of Health – Manatū Hauora, 2025).  New Zealand has lacked direction on smoking policy since legislation was passed in 2024 that overturned the policies aimed at decreasing smoking rates introduced in 2022 (Chisholm, 2024). The 2022 policies were described as “world-leading” (Chisholm, 2024), but were scrapped without a clear alternative plan. Smoking remains just as damaging to health as it was at the time of the 2022 legislation, so why is there no action being taken to reduce this damage? We believe New Zealand must remain committed to minimising the health detriments of smoking and similar nicotine products, and that new governmental policy should support this.  Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora (2025), smoking can cause gum disease and cancer, as well as damage vision, lungs, making it hard to breathe, and can cause premature signs of ageing in the skin.  By introducing legislation that properly regulates the sale of tobacco and nicotine products in New Zealand, we can make progress towards a future in which the happiness and health of New Zealanders are prioritised over the bottom lines of big tobacco companies. We seek a change in legislation that looks towards New Zealand’s future and makes genuine positive change for the health of New Zealanders. References: Chisholm, D. (2024). Up in Smoke. In Ingenio (pp. 20–22). Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/alumni/whats-happening/alumni-publications/ingenio-autumn-2024/Ingenio-autumn-2024-web.pdf Health Coalition Aotearoa. (2024, April 22). Tobacco and Vaping. Health Coalition Aotearoa. https://www.healthcoalition.org.nz/tobacco-and-vaping/ Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora. (2025). What smoking is doing to your body. Smokefree.Org.Nz. https://www.smokefree.org.nz/facts/health-effects/what-smoking-is-doing-to-your-body Ministry of Health – Manatū Hauora. (2025, November 19). New Zealand Health Survey highlights long-term decline in smoking rates. Ministry of Health NZ. https://www.health.govt.nz/news/new-zealand-health-survey-highlights-long-term-decline-in-smoking-rates

The Public Service Commission’s April 2026 Performance Improvement Review painted a stark picture of a Police force facing an integrity crisis. It identified a culture of “tribalism” among senior leadership, perceptions of a two-tier justice and complaints system, and organisational practices that have failed both staff and the public.  The review makes clear that Police leadership must deliver a generational shift in culture by embedding accountability and zero tolerance for misconduct from the front line through to the executive. Without sustained, independent oversight, this review will become another report that sits on the shelf while public trust declines. For almost 20 years, independent reviews have identified the same fundamental issues. From the Bazley Commission review in 2007, to the Public Service Commission’s 2026 review, Police culture has too often placed loyalty above integrity, discouraged staff from speaking up, and failed to hold senior officers to the same standards of those they lead. While some progress has been made, the underlying cultural problems remain unresolved. My own experience reflects many of these systemic concerns:  Since lodging an 89-page crime report in January 2021, I have experienced repeated failures of accountability including blocked complaints processes, ignored escalations all the way up to and including the Commissioner, misleading information, and conduct inconsistent with Police’s stated values of empathy, integrity, professionalism and respect. While my case is only one example, it reflects the same systemic failures identified repeatedly by independent reviews over the past two decades. For more information on my appalling Police experience, please visit: https://realnzpolice.com/intro/  

Local Representation and Voice:  South Wairarapa comprises distinct rural, small-town and coastal communities. Absorption into a Wellington-centric council will dilute local governance, reducing our rural voice to a tiny minority against urban Wellington, Hutt Valley and Porirua interests. Community Preference: Independent surveying across the valley demonstrates overwhelming public backing  (over 76%) for a single Wairarapa unitary authority combining Carterton, Masterton and South Wairarapa, compared to negligible support for a Greater Wellington model. Rating and Financial Autonomy: Rates generated in the Wairarapa to fund local infrastructure, roads, drainage and rural services rather than subsidising large-scale infrastructure over the Remutakas. Geographic and Economic Cohesion: Our catchment management, primary production, roading networks and community identity are tied directly to our Wairarapa neighbours in Carterton and Masterton- not metropolitan Wellington.

The old Motueka Wharf is a beautiful natural environment and the pōhutukawa trees should not be removed with upcoming restoration. They stand as guardians of a serene natural environment, providing a vibrant habitat for native birds and an essential nectar source for bees. For many in our community, these trees are not just flora; they create a sanctuary that offers solace, reflection, and joy. Being amidst them, whether on a family picnic or a solitary walk, refreshes our spirits and connects us deeply to nature. This is a beautiful shady area when it's too hot and also a great shelter from the wind. This area is easily accessible for disabled people to get out and about in nature also, providing the perfect environment if you can't walk or walk far to sit and be in peace in nature. Sadly, the upcoming wharf restoration project plans to remove these beloved trees. While they want to restore the wharf it should not come at the cost of our precious natural heritage. Removing the pōhutukawa will lead to the destruction of bird habitats, diminish the bee population, and strip away a cherished community space. Moreover, the aesthetic and ecological value of these trees cannot be replaced once uprooted. There are alternatives. With proper planning, we can preserve both the historic structure of the wharf and the natural environment these trees provide. Modern engineering offers solutions to integrate the pōhutukawa into the restoration work rather than seeing them as obstacles. We urge the decision-makers and stakeholders involved in the project to reconsider this portion of the plan. Let us collaborate to find a more sustainable and inclusive approach that supports the wharf's restoration while preserving the pōhutukawa. This is a moment for us to demonstrate our community's commitment to ecological balance and cultural heritage. By signing this petition, you are supporting a vision for Motueka Wharf that respects both our past and our environment's importance for the future. Please join us in preserving these iconic trees and ensuring they continue to be a part of our community's legacy for generations to come. Sign now to make a difference!

With three major parties now supporting affirmative consent law reform, Parliament has a genuine opportunity to act before the election. Last week, National announced its support, joining Labour and the Greens in recognising that New Zealand’s consent laws need to change. There is already draft legislation and enough support to progress it. With only limited sitting dates remaining, delaying reform risks treating the safety and dignity of victim-survivors as an election issue, rather than the humanitarian issue it is. We want an Aotearoa where every person, especially our rangatahi, grows up understanding that consent is not silence, uncertainty or the absence of resistance. It is something freely and voluntarily given, actively communicated, and grounded in mutual respect. For too many victim-survivors, sexual violence is not a single moment that simply passes. Its effects can reach into how people feel in their bodies, relationships, schools, workplaces and communities for years afterwards. It can affect mental health, trust, education, whānau relationships and a young person’s understanding of what they are entitled to expect from others. Our laws should reflect the seriousness of that harm and the basic truth that every person has the right to sexual autonomy. New Zealand’s criminal law does not currently contain a positive statutory definition of sexual consent. The Crimes Act identifies some circumstances where consent is absent, but it does not clearly say what consent is. This gap leaves room for outdated and harmful assumptions: that someone must fight back, say “no” in a particular way, or that silence, hesitation, intoxication, a past relationship or simply being there can be treated as agreement. A clear affirmative-consent framework would help shift the focus to communication, mutuality and respect. It would make clear that consent cannot be presumed, while supporting the conversations our young people need to have about healthy relationships, boundaries and care for one another. This reform would not weaken the fundamental protections of the criminal justice system. The prosecution would still have to prove every element of an offence beyond reasonable doubt. It is about ensuring the law is clear, fair and capable of reflecting what we now understand about sexual autonomy and harm. The call for change has been building for years. In 2022, more than 12,000 people signed the Consent Law Reform campaign petition. In 2023, the Justice Committee unanimously recommended that Parliament re-examine the law on consent. Victim-survivors, rangatahi, whānau, advocates, community organisations and legal experts have continued to call for change. This is not a party-political issue. It is about whether Parliament is prepared to put dignity, safety and wellbeing ahead of election politics. No young person, victim-survivor or whānau should have to wait through another election cycle for the law to catch up with what we know about consent, safety and healthy relationships. Parliament has a practical pathway and sufficient support to act. It should do so now. References and supporting information • Justice Committee report on the Petition of Layba Zubair: Review of Sexual Consent Laws • Consent law reform could pass now, says legal expert • National promises stricter rules on sexual consent | RNZ

This is important because climate change is the most serious and important issue facing humankind. We have a rapidly closing window of opportunity to prevent catastrophic damage to the natural world and all human populations. The National Party / ACT / NZ First coalition government has already removed all previously useful emissions reduction laws and policies, leaving us only with the failed ETS scheme. This type of failure is not an option if we are to prevent the extreme weather events we are beginning to experience from escalating in both speed and scale.