Ruth Richardson Gets Damehood for Wrecking New Zealand

In a move that’s left many gobsmacked, Ruth Richardson, the architect of the infamous “Mother of All Budgets,” has been named a Dame Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2025 King’s Birthday Honours. The Honours Unit, Cabinet and the King must have rocks in their heads.

 

This accolade, meant to celebrate service to Aotearoa, feels like a slap in the face to the countless New Zealanders who bore the brunt of her ruthless economic reforms. Far from deserving a Damehood, Richardson’s legacy is one of deepened inequality, shredded social safety nets, and a callous disregard for the vulnerable.

As Finance Minister from 1990 to 1993, Richardson championed the neoliberal blitz known as “Ruthanasia.” Her 1991 budget slashed welfare benefits, privatised state assets, and deregulated markets with a zeal that made even some of her National Party colleagues wince. The fallout was immediate and brutal. Child poverty rates skyrocketed, with a 1996 study showing that the proportion of children living below the poverty line doubled from 14% in 1982 to 29% by 1994, as a direct consequence of her austerity.

 

Unemployment surged to 11.1% in 1992, the highest since the Great Depression, as her policies gutted public sector jobs and left thousands struggling. Income inequality widened dramatically, with Richardson helping to ensure that New Zealand is one of the most unequal nations in the world to this very day.


Today, RNZ reported:

Two former finance ministers receive King's Birthday Honours

Former National MP Ruth Richardson. Photo: Supplied

Two former finance ministers have been appointed Companions of the New Zealand Order of Merit at this year's King's Birthday Honours.

Ruth Richardson and Steven Joyce, both former National MPs, have been honoured for their services as Members of Parliament.

Three other former MPs - Ian McKelvie, Anae Arthur Anae, and Dover Samuels - have also received Honours.

'Early and decisive course correction was imperative' - Richardson

Richardson was well aware that an interview about her King's Birthday Honour would include questions on her time as finance minister.

The economic reforms she oversaw - and the 1991 'Mother of All Budgets' - made significant changes to social welfare and public services, the effects of which are still felt by many.

Richardson started by saying in 1991 New Zealand was at huge risk, and was drowning in a sea of debt and perpetual forecast deficits.

It’s true. When Ruth Richardson became Finance Minister in 1990, New Zealand faced a fiscal crisis, with public debt at 48% of GDP and deficits projected to persist. The National Party’s earlier policies under Robert Muldoon (1975–1984), particularly the debt-fueled “Think Big” projects, increased debt from 5% to 40% of GDP, exacerbating the crisis. Inefficient state enterprises and Minister's high spending further strained finances, setting the stage for Richardson's decision to make the poor pay for her parties financial failures.

Richardson’s defenders, including herself, claim her 1991 'Mother of All Budgets' and Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994 set a global standard for fiscal prudence. But at what cost? Her policies prioritised trying to balance budgets over human welfare, forcing austerity that crippled health and education services. Hospital waiting lists ballooned, and schools struggled as funding dried up.

 

New Zealand's social fabric tore apart, homelessness spiked, and food banks became a grim fixture in communities. Her reforms didn’t just trim fat; they cut into the bone of a society already reeling from Roger Douglas’ earlier experiments. But what makes this all the worse is that she’s never acknowledged the harm she caused.

Impact on Health Services and Hospital Waiting Lists

The 1991 budget introduced user-pays requirements in hospitals, shifting costs to patients for services previously funded by the government. This was part of a broader restructuring that reduced public spending on health.

A 2015 review noted that Richardson’s reforms caused “severe financial strains on hospitals,” leading to operational challenges. Hospital waiting lists grew significantly in the early 1990s, with a 1993 study reporting a 20% increase in elective surgery wait times from 1990 to 1992, attributed to reduced funding and increased demand on under-resourced facilities.

By 1994, some hospitals reported waitlists exceeding 12 months for non-urgent procedures, a stark contrast to pre-1991 levels. The introduction of user charges also deterred low-income patients from seeking care, exacerbating health inequities, as documented in a 1996 Health Services Research report. These outcomes align with claims that austerity “crippled health services” and caused hospital waiting lists to balloon.

Impact on Education and School Funding

Education funding faced similar cuts, with schools required to adopt user-pays models, such as increased parental contributions for basic services. The budget reduced per-pupil funding by approximately 5% in real terms between 1991 and 1993, according to Ministry of Education data. Schools in low-income areas struggled most, as they relied heavily on government grants.

A 1994 report from the New Zealand Educational Institute highlighted that many schools deferred maintenance, cut staff, or reduced programs, leading to larger class sizes and reduced educational quality. These struggles support the claim that schools faced significant challenges as funding “dried up” under austerity.

Social Impact, Increased Homelessness, and Food Banks

The budget’s deep welfare cuts, unemployment benefits reduced by $14 weekly, sickness benefits by $27.04, and family benefits by $25–$27, severely impacted low-income households. A 2015 Treasury report noted that welfare-reliant households saw their income drop from 72% to 58% of the national average between 1990 and 1993. Child poverty doubled from 15% in 1990 to 29% in 1994, and income inequality rose, with the Gini coefficient increasing from 0.30 to 0.33 by 1996. These economic pressures tore at the “social fabric,” as communities faced increased hardship.

Homelessness surged as housing support was cut amid rising costs. A 2017 European Journal of Public Health study noted that austerity policies in the early 1990s, including New Zealand’s, increased homelessness risks by reducing subsidies and social services. By 1993, estimates suggested a 30% rise in visible homelessness in urban centers like Auckland, with no comprehensive national data due to under-reporting. Food banks, virtually non-existent before the 1980s, became entrenched, with the Salvation Army reporting a 50% increase in food parcel distribution between 1991 and 1994.

I guess it's entirely appropriate that Ruth is being honoured today. After all, we are in the middle of another permanent scarring of the economy for stupid ideological reasons. Let's have a quick look [🧵1/n] pic.twitter.com/SyKff5JBxL

— Musical Chairs (@MusicalChairs14) June 1, 2025

Awarding Ruth Richardson a Damehood whitewashes her terrible legacy. It’s a tone-deaf endorsement of policies that prioritised corporate interests over people, leaving a generation, those who survived, scarred for life. The honours system is meant to uplift those who’ve served the nation, not those who’ve divided it and made it poorer. Richardson’s recent support for the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which again undermines Te Tiriti, only underscores her disconnect from New Zealand's shared values.

This isn’t about rewriting history…it’s about accountability. Honouring Richardson glorifies a chapter of financial pain and increased inequity for New Zealand. If we’re to celebrate true service, let’s recognise those who’ve rebuilt what her policies broke, not the architect of the wrecking ball. Shame on the honours committee for this misjudgment, and shame on Ruth Richardson for believing that she deserves this Damehood. All she really deserves is our scorn.

The Coalition's Pay Equity Betrayal

The Coalition of Chaos' latest incredibly short-sighted move sees them throwing pay equity claims into the bin to fund a few new helicopters and in so doing has set employment law back decades. We all agree that modern search and rescue equipment is necessary, but at what cost? Pay equity laws, painstakingly initiated to address systemic wage gaps for teachers, nurses, and other underpaid mainly female-dominated sectors, have been shelved, even though these claims are about righting decades of injustice. It’s a typical move from a government that loves photo-ops but baulks at properly funding the people who keep society running.

Contrast this with Labour’s tenure. When they invested in new helicopters, like the eight NH90s for the Defence Force, they didn’t gut social progress to do it. Labour balanced defence upgrades with commitments to public services, including advancing pay equity. For example, they settled major claims for social workers and education support staff, lifting thousands of low-paid employees closer to a living wage. Budgets were tight, but Labour didn’t pit helicopters against fairness. They found a way to modernise without screwing over the workforce. Why can’t National?


Today, RNZ reported:

 

Overhaul of equal pay legislation is halting progress, Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner says

The Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner says she has serious concerns about the proposed overhaul of equal pay law.

The government is planning to limit the scope of pay equity claims and raise the threshold of proof, making it harder to prove a job has been historically undervalued.

It said settlements had cost the Crown $1.78 billion dollars a year.

 

The Coalition’s excuse? “Fiscal responsibility.” Spare me. This is the same bunch of idiots who are happy to pay more for less ferries to be delivered at a later date...the same morons who splash cash on tax cuts for the wealthy while crying poor when it comes to minimum wage rises. Scrapping pay equity to fund helicopters isn’t about balancing books; it’s about priorities. National’s vision is one where elite interests soar, while the rest of us are grounded. And let’s not ignore the optics: helicopters are great for getting in the news with favourable press releases. Pay equity? That’s just “woke” noise to them, despite the fact it directly impacts thousands of struggling Kiwi families.

What’s worse, this move is set to bypass normal due process and therefore undermines trust in the government. Workers who’ve campaigned for equity now see their efforts trashed for political expediency. Christopher Luxon gloating about how much the government will save is a slap in the face to unions, advocates, and every Kiwi who believes in a fair go. Labour’s approach, while not perfect, at least showed respect for the people who keep New Zealand ticking. They didn’t sacrifice one public good for another; they governed with a broader lens.

It’s not just about helicopters...it’s about a government that cannot balance the books. If they can’t fund both defence and fairness through equal pay, maybe the problem isn’t the budget. Maybe it’s their moral compass. Wake up, New Zealand. We deserve better than the coalition of chaos’ short-sighted vision for New Zealand.

PM runs away from equal pay

Since their election in 2008, the National led government has dragged its feet on the issue of equal pay. Even when they looked close to making some worthwhile legislative changes, after years of legal battles, the remedy proposed is clearly far too narrow in focus to make any real difference at all.

Like so many of the National led government’s proposals it's simply window dressing to make it appear that they give a damn about the low and discriminatory wages people are expected to survive on. It's pretty obvious that National wants people's incomes to remain disproportionately allocated based on their gender, and that's why Bill English was run out of Dunedin hospital this afternoon.

Today, 1 News reported:

Protesters demanding equal pay force PM to leave Dunedin Hospital after storming building

Protesters have flooded Dunedin Hospital, forcing Prime Minister Bill English to leave the building.

Bill English was ushered out of the hospital following his announcement that $1billion will be spent on the complete rebuild of Dunedin hospital.

1 NEWS political reporter Katie Bradford tweeted: "Protesters have marched into Dunedin hospital and chased the PM & health minister out of the building".

Thankfully a lot of people realise that the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill will simply not work to address pay inequality in New Zealand… and here’s why.

On Thursday, Newsroom reported:

Equal pay advocate Bartlett ‘let down’ by Govt

Just four months ago, the Government described its $2 billion deal with Kristine Bartlett and her fellow aged care workers as an historic first step towards achieving pay equity. But Bartlett now says she feels betrayed by the Government. Andre Chumko reports.

…

The disillusion began to set in within two days. On April 20 the Government released its draft bill, which unions and the Opposition said erected a road block to settlements similar to Bartlett's by forcing pay equity claimants to compare themselves first with colleagues in their own businesses and sectors, rather than with similarly skilled workers in other sectors. They argued the Government had ignored the good work done over two years by employers and unions in a Joint Working Group led by Dame Patsy Reddy, who is now the Governor General.

The bill's presentation to Parliament last week for its first reading confirmed for many that the promise of April 18 had been dashed.

"I listened to the first reading and I was just absolutely gobsmacked to think that they could stand up there and say what they had to say about it. They didn’t care a damn. Not one of them. They totally changed their minds and they totally reneged on what was the exciting part about this case, and just stopped it basically for everyone else," Bartlett said.

In July, Newsroom also reported:

Equal pay tsunami surges forward

Eric Crampton, chief economist at the New Zealand Institute, said the pay equity framework would likely result in hundreds of millions of dollars in extra public spending leaving the Government “stuck with a bit of a mess”.

National’s attempt to trick people into thinking they were addressing the equal pay issue has left them running for cover. This is particularly concerning for Bill English because Labour’s new leader, Jacinda Ardern, has recently announced that she won’t rest until women have equal pay.

There’s a clear choice for voters at the upcoming election between a party that pretends and one that actually cares about equal pay. If like Jacinda you also want to see an end to workplace discrimination, make the right choice on your ballot paper. It’s time to change the government.

Blatant media manipulation

It's been interesting to watch the response to the Labour party's proposal to discuss a quota system to ensure more female representation. We aren't even discussing a policy here, it's just a proposal at this stage, which makes me wonder what all the hoopla is about.

In my opinion, the issue is whether there's enough proportional representation in parliament, not whether men are better qualified or motivated than women to do the job. In fact studies have shown that women actually run companies better than men and are more likely to increase production and profits, so the disproportionate amount of men in positions of power clearly has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with sexism.

Obviously there aren't enough female Members of Parliament, especially in the current government. This fact is being completely ignored by the right wing propagandists, including female members of the National party.

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported:

National's Judith Collins was dismissive of the proposal, saying it showed Labour women clearly were not confident of being selected under normal processes.

"It is a surprise that they have so little confidence in themselves."

The problem isn’t with females having less confidence, it’s that the system is skewed in favour of male candidates. There’s something called the old boys club that ensures a male applicant is chosen over a female one even if she's more qualified and motivated to succeed. The issue here isn't the rule change, it's the problem that the rule change proposes to fix.

Despite the howls of protest, quotas are one way to remedy gender bias. What the misogynists are completely ignoring is that such systems have been shown to work effectively in business and political organizations throughout the world, so there’s no reason it wouldn't work for Labour. The Green party for instance uses quotas to effectively ensure proportional representation, and by all accounts their system works well.

However, the true significance of Labour’s proposed rule change, or more specifically the attention it has received, has eluded most commentators. It's nothing more than a red hearing with the leaking of the 2013 Annual Conference agenda timed perfectly to take the focus off far more important issues, namely the GCSB hearing. Clearly the right wing is desperate to subvert people's attention away from topics that are damaging to John Key's credibility.

It's a similar ploy to that used by National's media lackey's when the Aaron Gilmore fiasco took the limelight off the GCSB bill, a law change that will further undermine New Zealanders right to privacy. Unfortunately the media often ignores the important stories in favour of blowing anything that makes Labour look bad out of all proportion. That's what is occurring now with the so-called "man ban" the media is focused on, and it’s pretty blatant manipulation.

Inciting the bigots

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

A complaint about an anti-gay marriage brochure, criticised as being "extraordinarily offensive", has been dismissed by the country's advertising watchdog on the grounds of freedom of speech.

Family First's "21 great reasons to keep marriage as is" pamphlet equates same-sex marriage with incest and paedophilia, denigrates children of same-sex couples and is hurtful to single-parent families, the Advertising Standards Authority heard.

The complainant said the brochure was "inflammatory, largely incorrect and was filled with biases". It was "extraordinarily offensive".

I have to agree; the pamphlet is highly offensive and filled with numerous inaccuracies... This quote from Metiria Turei for instance is a complete fabrication:

METIRIA TUREI (Green): "Marriage as understood in our society, and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. ...This bill does not affect the Marriage Act. It does not change in any way the structure, the validity, of the institution of marriage." 1st Reading Civil Union Bill

Here's what Turei actually said:

Marriage as understood in our society, and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. Contrary to the beliefs of some, this institution is not universal but stems out of a particular Christian tradition. That is nothing to be ashamed of. I encourage those who try to claim that marriage is universal to embrace the particular historical and cultural tradition from which marriage was born.

[...]

Others have tried to explain how the bill will undermine the institution of marriage. I have not found any single compelling argument as to how allowing some to solemnise their relationship through a civil union, which then entitles them to recognition under the law, will undermine the institution of marriage. This bill does not affect the Marriage Act. It does not change in any way the structure, the validity, of the institution of marriage. Those who consider marriage a divine responsibility of God will know that human law cannot disturb divine law, so therefore nothing that we do in this Chamber will undermine the divinity of marriage.

They've misquoted the Green party co-leader, cherry picking various parts of her speech to misrepresent what she said... Therefore the complaint should have been upheld.

It's one thing to have a robust expression of belief or opinion, but it's quite another to totally misrepresent what an MP has said.

That level of dishonesty clearly displays why the anti marriage equality brigade are fundamentally wrong! They're not even being honest about what people say, so how can we expect them to be honest about anything else?

Annoyingly their pamphlet is copy protected... Here it is anyway:

21 great reasons to keep marriage as is.

1. MARRIAGE IS FOUNDATIONAL Throughout history and in virtually all human societies, marriage has always been a union between men and women. Marriage predates both the organised church and the state.The State should not presume to re-engineer a natural human institution.

2. BIOLOGY NOT BIGOTRY Marriage combines the complementary characteristics of men and women as defined by nature. Nature is exclusive and discriminatory in that only the union of a man and a woman can produce another life. It makes sense to treat something so unique in a unique way.

3. FOR MARRIAGE, NOT AGAINST PEOPLE This debate is not a discussion about whether homosexuals are good people or not. Every human being should be treated with dignity and respect. However, many people in the homosexual community also do not agree with same-sex marriage. They are not 'homophobic' or 'bigoted'. Everyone has a right to love whom they choose, but nobody has a right to redefine marriage.

Everyone has a right to love whom they choose, but nobody has a right to redefine marriage.

The issue is one of definition, not discrimination.

4. DEFINITION, NOT DISCRIMINATION It is perfectly possible to support natural marriage while also recognising and respecting the rights of others. Changing the law so that marriage includes same-sex unions would be a massive change to what marriage means. The issue is one of definition, not discrimination.

5. EQUALITY IS NOT SAMENESS Equality is not sameness, and difference is not inequality. As popular NZ Herald columnist Jim Hopkins wrote: "(Discrimination) happens all the time. If equality was Parliament's objective, there'd be no minimum drinking age, no ban on bigamy or specified drugs, no requirement to pass a test to get a driver's licence and no Maori seats either."

6. THE 'RIGHT' TO MARRY? Marriage rightly discriminates. A 14-year-old cannot get married. Three or four people cannot get married to each other. A person who is currently married cannot marry another person. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. A mother cannot marry her adult son. Even those wanting 'equality' believe there should be restrictions—which shows that even they believe that marriage is not an absolute right for everybody or every type of romantic relationship.

7. SPECIAL RIGHTS? In 2004, the government introduced civil unions and changed over 150 pieces of legislation to provide legal recognition and protection for same-sex relationships in NZ. There is currently no discrimination in the law against same-sex couples. Why do we now need to provide special rights?

8. WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS? For many, marriage is more than just a legal agreement or social contract. We must consider the rights of people who have deliberately chosen marriage because of its historical, cultural or religious meaning and value. By changing its meaning, we would be trampling on the rights of most New Zealanders who hold such views and ideals.

9. HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOUR MARIAGE? We need to be concerned with more than what merely affects us personally. This bill isn't just a simple change in the wording of a current law. It is proposing the complete redefinition of an institution as it has existed for thousands of years.

10. DEFINITIONS MATTER Changing the definition of something changes the way society and future generations view it and the important role it plays. We would not accept a law that changes the definition of a father to include mothers. By doing so, we would cover up reality. Definitions matter.

11. MUM AND DAD MATTER Marriage between a man and a woman says to a child that mum and dad who made you will also be there to love and raise you. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with their biological mother and father who are married. The differences between men and women - mothers and fathers - really do matter.

12. GENDER MATTERS One of the outcomes of redefining marriage is that same-sex couples will be able to adopt non-related babies and children. Two men might individually be good fathers, but neither can be a mum. Two women might individually be good mothers, but neither can be a dad. While a compassionate society should always come to the aid of motherless and fatherless families, a wise and loving society should never intentionally create fatherless or motherless families. Deliberately depriving a child of a loving mum or a dad is not in the child's best interests.

13. JURY STILL OUT ON SAME-SEX PARENTING There are many many large, scientifically strong studies from the past four decades and earlier showing children do better with their married biological mother and father compared with any other type of family structure. As prominent Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard Waghorn says, this is not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution. Studies said to show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children are - so far - methodologically weak, and thus scientifically inconclusive. They certainly can't be used to justify a wholesale change to the definition of marriage or adoption laws.

14. AN IDEOLOGY FORCED ON ALL If marriage is redefined, everyone would be subject to the new definition. Anyone who disagrees with it would be at odds with the law. This will directly affect ministers, faith-based organisat ions and schools, and marriage celebrants, amongst others. If same-sex marriage is seen as a fundamental human right, then all will be forced to recognise it. You can't be selective about which groups will recognise fundamental human rights. The author of the bill, Labour M P Louisa Wall, promised that the bill did not require any person or church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a church has. This assurance is now being seriously questioned by legal experts including the NZ Law Society and members of the Victoria University law faculty.

Encourage others to sign the petition. Online signatures are preferred so direct them To obtain written signatures, petition forms can also be downloaded from our website.

15. WARNINGS FROM OVERSEAS EXPERIENCE The alarming examples of what happens when attempts are made to redefine marriage are endless.

In Australia, tennis great Margaret Court came under attack when she expressed opposition to same-sex marriage early in 2012. Court was accused by same-sex marriage activists of spreading "hateful comments" and "inciting the bigots out there";

In 2011, a respected Canadian sports anchor was fired after expressing support for the traditional definition of marriage on hisTwitter account;

In 2011, dual gold-medallist Peter Vidmar was chosen to be chef de mission for the United States team at the 2012 London Olympics but was pressured to resign simply because he had supported Proposition 8, the measure which defined marriage as between a man and a woman in California;

In Canada, Saskatchewan's highest court ruled that marriage commissioners who are public servants cannot refuse to marry same-sex couples, whatever their personal conviction; 

In Maine, USA, where recently a referendum allowed same-sex marriage, any notary public who performs marriages may not refuse to perform a same-sex "marriage" for any reason, otherwise they will be charged with a human rights violation; 

In Denmark, same-sex couples have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies;

In New Jersey, USA, a judge ruled against a United Methodist retreat house which refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises;

In Israel, the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court ordered the owners of an Israeli reception hall to pay $25,000 damages to a lesbian couple after refusing to host their same-sex wedding on the grounds of their religious beliefs;

In the UK, a housing trust worker lost his managerial position, had his salary cut by 40%, and was given a final written warning after posting on his personal (and private) Facebook account that hosting gay weddings in churches was "an equality too far"; 

And UK primary school teachers could face the sack for refusing to promote gay marriage if same-sex unions become law. An education minister refused to rule out the possibility that teachers, even in faith schools, could face disciplinary action for objecting on grounds of conscience. Labour MP Louisa Wall recently suggested that integrated faith-based schools in New Zealand receiving government funding should not be promoting a traditional view of marriage.

16. BANNING 'MOTHER' FATHER"HUSBAND' WIFE' The health department in the US state of Washington is to remove the words "husband" and "wife" from marriage and divorce certificates, after same-sex marriage was approved in a recent referendum. The UK Government has said the words "husband" and "wife" will have to be removed from official documents if marriage is redefined. In France, the words "mother" and "father" are set to be stripped from official documents, under its plans to redefine marriage. In Spain, terms such as "mother" and "father" have become "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B" on birth certificates.

17. WHAT NEXT? If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again? Allowing only same-sex marriage on the basis of love and commitment would then open the door for polygamous, polyamory (group), and consensual adult incest-type marriages. Why would discrimination against these loving adults be ok?They may be illegal now, but it wasn't that long ago that same-sex marriage was illegal also.

18. SAME AS BANNING INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGE? No - these bans were unjust, and were designed to keep races apart. Marriage is grounded in bringing the genders together. Overturning the ban on inter-racial marriage did not mean a redefinition of marriage but an affirmation of it.

UK primary school teachers could face the sack for refusing to promote gay marriage if same-sex unions become law.

If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined again?

19. BUT NOT ALL COUPLES HAVE CHILDREN We agree, not all married couples have children - but every child ever born has a mum and a dad. Having babies is not a requirement for marriage - but it is a natural outcome. Marriage is a unique union that can lead to procreation. It is for this reason that the State became interested in marriage in the first place. We do not disqualify couples from marrying based on exceptions. Older people marrying is the except ion also, not the norm. Every man and woman who marry are capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father.

20. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE COULD STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE? Marriage does not thrive under the inclusive banner of "the more the merrier." A marriage culture, which is essential to a healthy society, is nourished when we are faithful to, and honour, its time-tested definition, and understand its important purpose. Extending the definition of marriage to include polygamy and group marriage would also not strengthen marriage just because more people could get married.

21. WE AGREE WITH THE POLITICIANS During the civil union debate, NZ politicians (including gay politicians) argued that the Civil Union Bill was an acceptable alternative, and that marriage should only be for heterosexuals. We agree. Nothing has changed since then.

HELEN CLARK (Labour): "Marriage is only for heterosexuals. The Government is not -- underline -- not, changing the Marriage Act. That will remain as an option only for heterosexual couples." NZ Herald June 21 2004

TIM BARNETT (Labour): "The Civil Union Bill is an acceptable alternative; marriage can remain untouched." 1st Reading Civil Union Bill

METIRIA TUREI (Green): "Marriage as understood in our society, and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. ...This bill does not affect the Marriage Act. It does not change in any way the structure, the validity, of the institution of marriage." 1st Reading Civil Union Bill

JOHN KEY (National): "Marriage is an institution of the church, I don't think it is necessary to have that label put on every relationship." 2006 "I don't think there's a real need to change the current legislation or to adopt new legislation." 2008
What can I do?

"I reject the suggestion of marriage equality Marriage equality has been a slogan; it has been a campaign. The claim to equality ignores the widely accepted fact that marriage is an institution that has a long and well-accepted definition — a definition that is heavily laden with cultural meaning and values crafted by custom and by law over the years." GaySenator Dean Smith — Parliament ofAustralia (during the Marriage debate in Australia, Sep 2012)

If you agree with the sentiment and urgency of this publication, please take a moment and contact your local elected and list MP's - either by phone, making an appointment to see them at their electorate office, writing a letter, or sending an email. You can find out who your local MP is and their email address at our website www.haveyoursay.org.nz

Marriage is too important to stay silent.

That last sentence I agree with; marriage is too important to stay silent... Therefore I look forward to the marriage equality bill passing to increase equality for all New Zealanders, irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Discrimination isn't justifiable just because it's been around for a long time... Besides, the research indicates that gay parents are more committed to their children than straight parents, which puts a pretty large spanner in Family First's propaganda.

Education for the rich

I've been enjoying Kerre Woodham's articles in the NZ Herald recently, with her straightforward style and obvious Kiwi idealism coming through in spades. However her offering today concerning student loan repayments is as naive as they come:

Well, they can't say they weren't warned.

Actually student loan debtors can, because the changes in law are being made after their contracts with the government were signed. The problem in my opinion is the entire student loans scheme itself, whereby many intelligent young people are now being denied an education because they are poor.

There's also a big difference between people who actively avoid repaying their loans and those who simply cannot afford to make payments. Woodham has unfortunately lumped them all together in her unjust tirade.

The ramifications of inhibiting many generations of New Zealander's from following the Kiwi dream by shackling them to debt at an early age and there being less opportunities to repay that debt have obviously not been considered by Woodham nor the government. Why should they give a fuck, it doesn't effect them or their children after all.

People consistently refusing to pay back their student loans are being targeted by the Government as the IRD increasingly uses legal action and debt collectors to claw back money from the arrogant oiks who have been sticking two fingers to the New Zealand taxpayer.

National isn't just targeting "arrogant oiks" who are actively avoiding repayments... They are also targeting former and present students who have been adversely affected by a lack of jobs that pay enough to survive on.

The phones ran red-hot on talkback this week with the overwhelming majority of people, including those who were diligently paying back their loans, believing it was time that the Government stopped dangling carrots in front of these individuals and started using a stick.

What a load of meaningless tosh! The people who frequent talkback radio are generally bigoted and ageist themselves, so it's little wonder that they support National punishing young students. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if Woodham et al. started marching down the street with pithforks and torches chanting about their hatred for young people who simply want an education without paying the earth.

It was pointed out that if you wanted a free education, then access to courses would be restricted; that most of the people who'd attended uni when course costs were free had no access to any sort of living allowance - unless it came from their parents.

They had to work; and that many students today work and study so they don't have to apply for living costs, minimising their loans.

Yes, it's hard work to study and to work part time, but, hello! Welcome to the real world. It's a tiny minority of people who have reneged on their loans, but let's get that $418 million back off them.

There's a contradiction in terms for starters... How can a "tiny minority" of student's cause $418 million in debt? Such a huge brain fade certainly isn't worthy of publication in our main newspaper.

Woodham is obviously reminiscing about the good old days when you could gain a free education, with students who didn't come from upper class families being able to work part time or in the holidays in order to pay their living costs because there were enough well paid jobs around.

Up until recently, students used to have access to a non-repayable living allowance while they were studying. The government scrapped that because they only want rich kids to gain a higher education. That's what this is really all about... Elitism!

That way other people will be able to have the opportunity to get the sort of education that these loan defaulters have enjoyed.

That makes no sense... Making it harder to get a loan in the first place, placing a living allowance on tick and having a harsh regime of punishment if you default on repayments is going to reduce the amount of people attaining an education. Less educated people means a society in decline, and therefore another economic downturn on the horizon if the right wings neoliberal agenda is allowed to continue.

Woodham is unfortunately buying right into National's ageist agenda here whereby students are viewed as some sort of leech on the taxpayer. The fact of the matter is that without students being able to take out loans that might never be repaid, less people will be educated, and any sort of education is better than none.

Equal Education Unequal Pay

Time to lower the voting age

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

It is unfair to deprive young people of the right to have their say on laws that affect them simply because of the actions of a minority of delinquents - a minority that probably won't even bother vote even if they could, much like the million adult voters who didn't turn up last election.

In my opinion it's not because some young people are delinquents that they don't have the right to vote yet, that's just one of the excuses being used... It's because the current government is ageist! Clearly they don't want young people to have a say in how things are being run, which can only be described as outright discrimination against youth.

Nowhere is this more apparent than with Nationals stupid idea to reintroduce youth rates, whereby an older generation is proposing policy that openly discriminates against 16 to 19 year olds. Paying people $10.80 per hour effectively turns them into wage slaves, because the cost of living uses up all their remuneration and little to nothing is left to socialize with.

The argument that its good for a young person to struggle for a while because it hardens them up is entirely obnoxious! No young person should go without proper food, a warm and dry house to live in and some decent clothes. However the current regime has many young people living in abject poverty and things are getting worse.

The other argument the ageists often trot out is that young people don't understand politics. However the younger generations sure understand the negative consequences of having a bunch old old men in charge. In fact many young people understand politics to a far greater degree than older people, and getting people enthusiastic about exercising their democratic right at a young age would mean they're more likely to continue to vote as adults.

The fact of the matter is that young people no longer have the same opportunities as those who are making the decisions. Generally speaking, most young people will not have the ability to work themselves into a home they own, and they no longer have the benefits of a free education either. Unfortunately the governments ageist policy direction shows no signs of changing.

Is it any wonder then that young people are leaving New Zealand in record numbers? Is it any wonder that some young people drink to excess and take drugs? You could even say that the reason more young people kill themselves is because of the discrimination against them just for being young. In fact many of the negative conditions that young people exhibit are directly attributable to our ageist society, which must change if we want to see any progress in these important areas.

Giving young people the vote would go some way to rectify the problem... But don't expect National to do the right thing anytime soon.

Obama on same sex marriage

Friend --

Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:

I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:

http://my.barackobama.com/Marriage

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.

Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.

So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.

Thank you, Barack