Election26: 20 steps from violence towards freedom

At a time of increasing misogyny (here and overseas), effective prevention of and protection from stalking, family violence and sexual violence is absolutely vital in order for all women, children and their families to live their lives freely and comfortably, and to ensure victim-survivors have safety and support to heal and recover.

The Coalition for the Safety of Women & Children is calling on parties to commit to the following 20 policy steps in the lead-up to Election 2026: twelve new steps and eight steps to halt & reverse the damage done in the last 3 years.

Update 20 Oct: Parties’ responses for individual steps in full are listed below.

All people should be free to use social media without fear of stalking, personal attacks, discrimination and abuse on the basis of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, disability or age.

To support this freedom, we need regulations (developed in Tiriti partnership with Māori) to ensure:

• Transparency: Require tech companies to show how their algorithms work – what content they recommend, what they remove – and complaints processes.
• Duty of care: Require tech companies to make their products & services safer by design by having strong processes to find & reduce risks.
• Independent oversight with teeth: An independent regulator with the power to penalise companies that don’t follow the rules.

These regulations are required, whether or not an under-16 ban is introduced, and are in line with what is planned and already happening in the EU, UK and Australia. Guidelines which identify abusive language, ‘dog whistles’ and harmful tropes are also required to support effective regulation, and need to be developed in consultation with targeted groups.

For more information, see the National Council of Women’s 2025 submission to the Select Committee Inquiry into online harm for rangatahi and NoHarmware.NZ

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party supports effective regulation of online platforms. Our Manifesto explicitly commits to a Digital Duty of Care, algorithmic transparency, accessible complaints systems and an independent regulator to address harmful online content and behaviour, alongside stronger protections for rainbow communities
and action to prevent gender-based violence.”

Labour: “Labour wants to see social media and online spaces that are safer for women, gender diverse, LGBTQI+ peoples, and young people. These include more education and research, safety features built into the algorithms, and a way to make sure the platforms are compliant.”

Opportunity: “We agree with the requirement for algorithmic transparency, and are interested in duty of care and independent oversight, depending on implementation. We note that Australia, the EU, and UK’s risk-based moderation system has had a chilling effect on minority and marginalised voices. We want to keep people safe, but are very cautious about the unintended consequences of what can amount to mass surveillance and censorship online.” (Note: the Opportunity-provided policy link here does not provide evidence of any “chilling effect” of any particular regulation; on the contrary, it warns against leaving moderation to platforms, which aligns with our policy demands: “Platforms must be forced to confront how their systems disproportionately harm marginalized users: through greater transparency, stronger protections, and intentional efforts to address algorithmic bias”)

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

 

Widespread misogynistic understandings that men have the right to control women – whether in general or in certain situations – are a key enabler of stalking. Such harmful socially-reinforced understandings are increasing (here and overseas), and their justifications can change depending on the cultural context. A very low proportion (5%) of Aotearoa NZ’s investment in combating violence is spent on primary prevention – this needs to change.

We understand that MSD’s “Love Better” and “Love Creep” campaigns are effective at increasing awareness among youth about positive relationship norms and controlling, coercive “red flag” behaviour. We also need similar campaigns, thoughtful, effected, ongoing, intersectional and intended for adults, Māori, Takatāpui & Rainbow communities, and all of Aotearoa’s ethnic communities, to prevent the attitudes which engender stalking (and family violence and sexual violence).

To see an example of a successful youth-oriented campaign, go to www.lovecreep.nz

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the Green Party can commit to reducing stalking through social-attitude campaigns when they are complemented with appropriate legal tools and early-intervention mechanisms.”

Labour: “Labour proposed legislation to make stalking illegal which forced the Government to introduce theirs. Stalking is abuse that is distressing and poses risk the of physical and sexual violence. Labour wants to reduce the number of people who experience stalking. Labour believes in evidence-based solutions to protect victim-survivors.”

Opportunity: “Opportunity supports widespread, culturally relevant campaigns to prevent stalking and promote respect for women, healthy relationships, consent and personal boundaries.
The recognition of stalking as a standalone offence is an important step in acknowledging the seriousness of this harm. However, legislation alone will not change the attitudes and behaviours that can contribute to stalking. Prevention also requires education and public awareness about controlling behaviour, persistent unwanted contact and respect for personal boundaries. These messages should also be incorporated into Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE), building on its role in teaching young people about healthy relationships, consent and boundaries.
Campaigns should be developed with experts, survivors and the communities they are intended to reach, and should be appropriate to different ages and cultural contexts. They should help make clear what healthy relationships look like and that behaviours such as monitoring, following and repeated unwanted contact are not expressions of care or love.
As with other prevention initiatives, campaigns should be evaluated for their effectiveness in changing attitudes and behaviour, so that public investment is directed towards approaches that make a measurable difference.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Aotearoa has zero specific support services for stalking victim-survivors, so it is extremely difficult for victim-survivors of stalking to get the support and protection they require to live their lives free from fear and coercive control. While the (under-funded) family violence response community sector can assist some victim-survivors to some extent, people targeted by strangers or acquaintances rather than (ex) intimate partners have absolutely nowhere to turn to.

We envisage stalking-response support taking the form of:

• self-navigation tool to identify types of stalking and potential responses
• a helpline and
• a referred one-on-one independent specialist advocacy service as provided by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust in the UK, for ongoing and/or particularly complicated cases of stalking, with the empathy and legal knowledge to advise both individual victim-survivors and police.

Specialist stalking victim-survivor services which are appropriate and safe for particular population groups need to be available for those groups, such as Māori, takatāpui and Rainbow people, disabled people and other ethnic groups.

To see a UK example of a stalking helpline, and stalking-identification tool, go to the Suzy Lamplugh “Am I Being Stalked” online tool

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the Green Party can commit to resourcing special support services, including for victim-survivors of stalking including for stalking outside of family violence.”

Labour: “Labour will support policy developed in consultation with stakeholders and based on international best practice to address violence. Labour policy on
family violence and stalking outside family violence will be evidence-based and will acknowledge that gender inequality is a cause of family violence. We
will identify those groups within society who encounter barriers to accessing support and tailor programmes to meet their needs.”

Opportunity: “New Zealand’s amendment of the Crimes Act to include stalking should be an indication that the country is beginning to take this harm more seriously. Since stalking is now a standalone crime, it stands to reason all victims services should be better equipped to serve victims of said crime. We will look to experts in the field as to the best way for this to be implemented (standalone hotline versus integrated service, etc).”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Currently Family Court judges are making decisions regarding parenting orders (for example) without knowing whether family violence is present (MoJ OIA 120214).  This is a very unsafe practice leading to dangerous outcomes: for example, Family Court decisions have given abusers unsupervised care or access to their children, enabling them to continue abuse of the children and their protective parent; women are urged by their lawyer not to disclose family violence, as this will be seen by the Family Court as obstructive; and Family Court decisions have backed the abusive parent vetoing counselling for their child victim-survivors (Backbone Collective, 2024). In these ways, uninformed Family Court decision-making without expertise in family violence (including intrafamilial sexual violence) is a key barrier to the safety and healing of victim-survivors, including children.  

A specialist court would enable Family Court decision-making to be informed and therefore safer, by:

• Screening child-care-and-access cases for indications of family violence (including intrafamilial sexual violence), and having family violence experts investigate these indications and report on their findings to the court. Such screening & investigation already happens in Australia, and Principal NZ Family Court Judge Jackie Moran has shown interest in having similar processes here (RNZ Dec 2025, MoJ OIA 120214).
• Ensuring all judges, lawyers and other court professionals have adequate and appropriate training in family violence (including intrafamilial sexual violence) before undertaking cases where there are indications of such violence.
• Enabling children to communicate their preferences and experiences to a specially-trained child specialist as recommended by the MoJ-commissioned 2022 Review of Children’s Participation in the Family Justice System of Aotearoa New Zealand (Inder report). Rather than being trained in adversarial litigation, the child specialist would understand: the presentation of family violence and sexual violence; child development; and trauma- and violence-informed age-appropriate communication. Tamariki Māori would have the option of a Māori child specialist.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party supports the expansion of specialist courts and would support the trial of a specialist family violence and sexual violence Family Court.”

Labour: “Labour believes in modernising our courts and court structure in a principled manner with the aim of making it more effective, efficient, and responsive.
We are yet to release our policy in the courts space – this will happen closer to the election.”

Opportunity: “Opportunity’s “Smart on Crime” policy heavily emphasises both prevention and centring victims when harm does occur; specialist courts are often best equipped to address sensitive issues like family and sexual violence, especially when it is occuring intra-communally. On the other hand, we can see the potential for further specialisation of courts to lead to fracturing within the system, and the potential for complex cases that could fit into a variety of courts finding inadequate care.
Consequently, we support a trial for a specialist family violence and sexual violence Family Court, with the model developed and evaluated carefully to see whether it produces better outcomes. We will go where the evidence leads.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Victim-survivor trust – particularly but not limited to Māori victim-survivors – in police is low for good reason, given inadequate protection of victim-survivors (Make it About Us report, 2024), ongoing disclosures about the Philips case (e.g. discussion with TV producers before personal stakeholders), and police misconduct including abuse of women and children and cover-ups, to the most senior levels. Members of the Coalition of Safety for Women and Children have attempted to engage with the police over several years about concerning and dangerous responses to victim-survivors of family violence and sexual violence and frankly, to date we have seen very little evidence the police are engaging in good faith on this issue.

Ongoing political championship and leadership is required for a full review of police structure and culture to identify how and why dangerous disrespect for victim-survivors has a hold in police culture, and to identify better, safer pathways for victim-survivors to report family violence and sexual violence to authorities than we have currently, and get uncompromised access to safety. Family violence and sexual violence experts (including Māori), and victim-survivor representatives (including Māori), must be involved in decision-making for the review.

For more information regarding expectations of a review, see all the recommendations in The Backbone Collective & Hohou Te Rongo Kahukura (2024) Make it about us: Victim-survivors’ recommendations for building a safer police response to intimate partner violence, family violence and sexual violence in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Backbone Collective & Hohou Te Rongo Kahukura Aotearoa NZ.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Police is a specific area where it is clear we have gone backwards. Successive Police Commissioners have been signalling for some time that they want to
return to ‘core policing work’ and that responsiveness to family and sexual violence is not what they see as core business. The issue is that they remain key
to people seeking protection from harm. As the first Minister charged with prevention of family and sexual violence, I [Marama Davidson] released Te Aorerekura, which set out a blueprint for ending family and sexual violence in Aotearoa. Key to this strategy was better training for staff in agencies like the Police to recognise harm and work with specialist services to prevent and reduce it, but it needs sustained funding and resource to be realised. General trust in police is at threat, especially regarding their responses to harm.
The next Police Minister will need to have trust restoration as a priority with some clear accountability measures. We support specialist family-violence capability,
trauma-informed and de-escalation training, clear referral pathways to iwi and community providers, stronger independent oversight, body cameras for
frontline police, and monitoring of repeat referrals and victim-survivor safety outcomes.”

Labour: “Family violence is our national shame. While there have been encouraging signs of increased reporting and more prosecutions, there is still so much more work to do. We believe that if Police are stepping back, there needs to be funding for services to fill that gap.”

Opportunity: “We are a Party led by quantitative evidence. New Zealand’s high rate of domestic and sexual violence and low trust in police indicate the system is flawed. We are open to a review with the aim of consolidating evidence-based recommendations for improvement.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

The Family Violence Work Visa pathway does not provide adequate longer-term protection for victims who have no safe or realistic option of returning to their country of origin once the six-month visa expires.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party supports reviewing the Family Violence Work Visa – current eligibility criteria for family violence visas are too narrow and carry an excessively high burden of proof.”

Labour: “Labour recognises that certain groups may be more vulnerable to violence and experience additional barriers to accessing support. Treating people with decency is at the heart of Labour’s approach to immigration.”

Opportunity: “Opportunity is open to such a review.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Coalition member Shakti Community Council NZ find that more than 75% of Indian victims coming through its doors are victim-survivors of dowry abuse which can involve severe verbal abuse, physical violence, threats to kill, psychological abuse, financial abuse, withdrawal of visa sponsorship and threats of deportation. Migrant victim-survivors may not have family or friends in Aotearoa, and be extremely isolated (NZ Herald, Aug 2026). Dowry-related violence is included in the Family Violence Act 2018 but state agency understanding of it is still poor and so state response is inadequate.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party supports upskilling staff to identify and respond to dowry-related violence.”

Labour: “Labour wants everyone to free from violence and harassment. Labour recognises that violence in families and communities is a violation of basic
human rights that has profound and far-reaching implications. Labour supports evidence-based approaches which seek to end violence.”

Opportunity: “We support closer engagement with sector experts who can recommend ways agencies can improve.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Stopping-Violence Programmes (SVPs) are a key plank in the state’s response to family violence – 9,000 abusers are referred to SVPs each year. Yet The Backbone Collective’s victim-survivor survey research (2026) found that:

• contrary to the claim in the SVP name, abuser attendance at SVPs can coincide with their ongoing and often worsening use of violence and abuse
• system regard for victim-survivor safety and information during and after the SVP period of heightened risk is inadequate
• support for victim-survivors is inconsistent, often self-initiated, and rarely integrated with the abuser’s SVP participation
• but where additional victim-survivor support is made available and accessed during abuser SVP attendance, it may assist some victim-survivors to have more agency in their own lives, possibly even when the abuser continues to (try to) use violence and abuse.

All the Just Ticking the Box recommendations would greatly assist with victim-survivor and community safety, and we commend them to decision-makers. The recommendation we highlight here does not have to wait for whole-system reform: “That the state ensure that all behaviour-change interventions are preceded and accompanied by a proactive offering of adequate safety support for the abuser’s adult and child victim-survivors by specialist victim-survivor focussed services.” Culturally appropriate victim-survivor support must be available for Māori, takatāpui and Rainbow people, disabled people and other ethnic groups.

For more information, see The Backbone Collective’s Just Ticking the Box report.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the Green Party are committed to supporting victim-survivors through all parts of their healing journey and we therefore support ensuring that victim survivors of stopping-violence programmes [attendees] are provided with safety support.”

Labour: “Labour wants everyone to [live] free from violence and harassment. Labour recognises that violence in families and communities is a violation of basic
human rights that has profound and far-reaching implications. Labour supports evidence-based approaches which seek to end violence.”

Opportunity: “We agree with most of The Backbone Collective’s recommendations. Provisions that require victim safety to be paramount, victim autonomy to be honoured, no longer confuse attendance for change, and eliminate non-accredited referrals are most important. We are hesitant to “immediately halt all positive consequences for SVP attendance,” as we do not want to unintentionally put up roadblocks to genuine healing. But we agree that attendance in and of itself is not remorse, and the efficacy of any program needs clear monitoring.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Why? Economic abuse is prevalent in Aotearoa NZ: 15% of ever-partnered women have experienced economic abuse. When victim-survivors are able to leave, many are forced to carry coerced debt, ruined credit and financial harm long after the relationship ends. We need to stop treating it like a hardship or budgeting problem, and ensure the state is not supporting and exacerbating such abuse.

Changes required include (but are not limited to):

• Making perpetrators, not victim-survivors, responsible for coerced debt.
• Establishing non-recoverable, family violence flexible funding grants for victim-survivors (including Family Violence Visa applicants) of up to $5000 value, similar to such grants in Australia, where an early edition “had a transformational impact in supporting thousands of victim survivors to achieve safety and recover from their experience of family violence.”
• Giving family violence victim-survivors the ‘right to repair’ credit reports when these are damaged by family violence.
• Stopping victim-survivors being prosecuted for benefit fraud if they receive the sole parent benefit while experiencing family violence from their partner.
• Making all victim-survivors eligible for non-means-tested, non-recoverable legal aid to deal with any legal issue resulting from family violence.

For more information,  visit ThisIsViolence.co.nz

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the Green Party supports reviewing the laws and systems that create the conditions for economic abuse, including interventions recommended by Good Shepherd such as the ‘no wrong door’ approach.”

Labour: “Labour believes that laws and systems should be modern and fit for purpose. We believe in investing in evidence-based solutions which seek to end violence.”

Opportunity: “We recognise the importance of addressing the systems and circumstances that enable economic abuse. Rather than relying on specific grants as the primary response, however, we would prefer to address an underlying source of vulnerability through our proposed Citizen’s Income, which would provide almost every adult with $19,400 tax-free per year. Giving women a greater degree of independent financial security would reduce reliance on a partner for basic living costs and could help reduce vulnerability to economic abuse.
We are also open to measures such as a “right to repair” on credit reports, which could assist women in rebuilding their financial independence following economic abuse. We would remain open to considering the wider legal and system changes recommended by experts, including Good Shepherd.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

In New Zealand as overseas, “Over time NDAs have become the default solution for many organisations, corporations and public bodies to settle cases including sexual misconduct, racism, and pregnancy discrimination. Their original purpose was to protect intellectual property or other commercial or sensitive information, but reports have shown they have become commonly used to prevent people speaking out about horrific experiences in the workplace. There have been many high-profile cases of NDAs being used to prevent victims from speaking about crimes, often forcing women and vulnerable individuals to feel stuck in unwanted situations, through fear or desperation. They have proliferated especially in lower-income, insecure employment including sectors such as retail, hospitality and accommodation, with non-disparagement clauses also typically attached.” (The Guardian, 2025)

For more information about the NZ context, see 2024 analysis by Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington academic Stephen Blumenfeld.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party supports the banning the ability for employers to use non-disclosure agreements in resolving sexual misconduct, harassment, and bullying complaints.”

Labour: “While the Labour Party is yet to release all of its policies related to the prevention of family and sexual violence, we are committed to a system that supports victim-survivors and puts an end to violence.”

Opportunity: “We agree that there is a strong case for greater restrictions on the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases involving sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying.
NDAs may have a legitimate role in protecting genuinely confidential or commercially sensitive information, but they should not be used to silence people about workplace misconduct or prevent patterns of harmful behaviour from being identified. This is particularly important where there are significant power imbalances between employers and employees.
We would support examining legislation to restrict or prohibit the use of NDAs and non-disparagement clauses in these circumstances, drawing on evidence and experience from jurisdictions that have already introduced such measures. We would want the detail of any legislative approach to be informed by experts in the field, survivors and the Law Society, to ensure it is effective and appropriately targeted.
Any approach should protect a victim-survivor’s right to speak about their experience and ensure that confidentiality cannot be used to conceal serious or repeated misconduct.
We should also ensure that reforms are carefully designed so that they do not inadvertently prevent mutually agreed confidentiality around matters that are genuinely private and unrelated to concealing misconduct.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Currently – according to this April 2026 RNZ article about Sam Troth’s now-submitted petition regarding sexual violence offences – sentences can be reduced by up to 40 percent for mitigating factors, including previous good character. Former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming received a discount for good character when being sentenced for possessing child sexual exploitation and bestiality material, while sex offender James Wallace received a 30% reduction on his sentence, in part due to 89 letters of support. Yet it is the very “pillar of the community” status, power and reputation which enables such offenders cause harm, by giving them the guise of trustworthy respectability to their victims, their victims’ families and communities.

Our removal of good character sentencing discounts covers family violence as well as sexual violence. Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money finds good character references problematic for all offending: “The court isn’t informed as to why the person actually wrote the reference. There’s no policing, so to speak, no due diligence over do they actually know why they are writing the letter and what it is all about. … the court can’t base a safe sentencing decision based on a letter written by someone – allegedly written by someone even – that didn’t actually know why they were writing the reference in the first place.”

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party shares the concerns of the sector that good-character references have often been weaponised to minimise offending, enable further
abuse, and retraumatise victim-survivors. The removal of good character references should just be one part of our broader approach to create a victim-
centred justice system where everyone has access to fair justice.”

Labour: “It goes without saying that someone convicted of sexual offending is not a person of good character, and an offender’s reputation in the community
should never outweigh the harm done to victims. Labour supports this view, and we acknowledge the work of survivors and advocates in this space.

We support the proposed change to the Sentencing Act, and we will work constructively on a cross-party basis next parliament. Survivors of sexual violence deserve far more support than they currently receive. The Government has scrapped sexual violence prevention programmes and has sought advice on cutting ACC support for survivors.
With most sexual assaults going unreported, the real challenge is to protect people by preventing this violence from happening in the first place, which is exactly what survivors and advocates have been calling for. Any change to sentencing needs to sit alongside that wider commitment.”

Opportunity: “We agree that there need to be stronger safeguards around the use of “good character” evidence in sentencing for sexual and family violence offences. In particular, we are concerned where a person’s reputation or position of trust has itself contributed to their ability to offend or has made it more difficult for victims to be believed or to seek help.
However, we would be cautious about removing all judicial discretion in every sexual and family violence case. There may be circumstances where judicial discretion remains appropriate, and we would not want to inadvertently create a sentencing regime that prioritises incarceration over rehabilitation and restoration in every case.
We see a particularly strong case for removing good-character discounts where adults are sentenced for sexual offending against children, and where an offender has used a position of power, authority or community trust to facilitate their offending – for example, where that reputation is directly relevant to the offending itself.
We support a review of the sentencing guidelines and the way good-character evidence is considered in sexual and family violence cases. The review should consider the concerns raised by victims and violence-prevention experts and ensure that a person’s reputation or standing in the community does not operate to minimise the seriousness of their offending or disadvantage victims.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Bench books are publicly-funded manuals for judges, typically containing an overview of statutes, rules, cases, social-science research, and expert commentary to enhance uniformity in judicial decision-making. It is standard practice globally and in the public interest for judicial bench books to be publicly-available, so lawyers and the public can see important advice informing judges. However, Aotearoa NZ has only just started “drip-feeding” bench books to the public and bench books of particular importance to the safety of women and children are still secret, available only to judges. They could be hopelessly outdated or full of misinformation, and there is no way for experts, legislators, lawyers, or the public to know. The NZ Family Court has demonstrated a lack of expert understanding of family violence, and resorts to myths and misunderstandings about domestic violence and child safety.

It is not acceptable for victim-survivors to have to wait for years before the Family Violence, Sexual Violence & Family Court bench books are made public. Because of the lack of transparency, it is unknown but possible that a programme is underway to clean these bench books up of myths before publication, but we have a right to know what the current bench books contain, and they should be made public immediately.

For more information, see Associate Professor Carrie Leonetti’s 2023 analysis (since then, some of the bench books have been made available, but not the Family Violence, Sexual Violence & Family Court bench books).

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party supports transparency and accountability across the justice system, and we would therefore support the publication of advice to judges on
Family Violence, Sexual Violence & Family Court.”

Labour: “While the Labour Party is yet to release all of its policies related to the prevention of family and sexual violence, we are committed to a system that supports victim-survivors and puts an end to violence.”

Opportunity: “We agree. Publicly-funded materials should always be open access.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Over the past electoral cycle, those in power have attacked many safeguards on women’s rights, freedom and quality of life. We can’t just go back to 2023 settings. Instead, we have designed our recommendations below to stop the ongoing harm and also to start healing some of the damage already done.

The scrapping of Fair Pay Agreements is perhaps second only to the repeated, overt and racist attacks on Tiriti o Waitangi as the scandal of the last electoral cycle – and women and their colleagues who are underpaid because they are in woman-dominated (often caring) professions should not have to pay for the appalling discrimination of the current government and their undemocratic pushed-under-urgency reversal of previously non-politicised commitments. The effects are particularly severe in Pacific, Māori and other communities where ethnic discrimination also has an effect and needs addressing (Pacific Pay Gap Inquiry, 2021).

The widespread anger is palpable and justified – and will not ease until workers get their full entitlements, with back pay and interest. Back pay is required to, at the very least, note the harm and distress caused by the halt on the Fair Pay Agreements since 2024.

See Ke Te Rapu Te Iwi, the report of the People’s Select Committee on Pay Equity.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the Green Party will reinstate Fair Pay Agreements and pay equity.”

Labour: “The Labour Party has committed to reinstating Fair Pay Agreements, as well as returning the Pay Equity system to one that rewards women for their work
rather than cutting their pay.”

Opportunity: “We strongly support pay equity and the reinstatement of cancelled pay equity claims
We are more cautious about Fair Pay Agreements (FPAs). We support the underlying objective of lifting employment standards and reducing the ability of employers to compete by driving down wages and conditions. However, we also recognise the concerns identified by MBIE about the design of the FPA system, such as the complexity and cost of the process. We are unconvinced legislation that prohibits industrial action (even if employers cannot withdraw from the process) is necessarily the best route, as it can lead to gridlock so claims just end up in the ERA regardless. MBIE’s analysis questioned whether the proposed system was sufficiently targeted and whether its benefits would outweigh the risks, which is a concern we share.
We would therefore support reconsidering a sector-level bargaining mechanism, but would want it to be carefully designed in light of the evidence and the concerns identified by MBIE. Our starting point would be to retain the objective of improving pay and conditions, particularly in low-paid and historically undervalued occupations, while ensuring that the system is workable, proportionate and does not unnecessarily undermine employment, productivity or flexibility.

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

While the cultural scaffolding of sexual violence – such as dangerous misogynistic attitudes – are increasing, government investment in primary prevention of family violence and sexual violence overall is low and declining, representing 5% of all FV/SV spend in 2026 at $26M, a decrease of $5.5M since 2025 (Govt review of investment in addressing FV/SV, 2026). Phase 2 of ACC’s Hikitia! community prevention funding was scrapped in 2025, and prevention education organisation RespectEd closed this year due to lack of funds. All ACC sexual violence prevention funding needs to be reinstated – and expanded, along with other FV/SV prevention initiatives. Culturally appropriate prevention initiatives must be a priority, for Māori, Takatāpui & Rainbow people, disabled people and other ethnic groups.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the current Government has de-prioritised the work to end violence – as seen by their failure to allocate a single new dollar of funding through this entire Parliamentary term, to Te Aorerekura, the elimination violence strategy. This has placed enormous pressure on the community sector as public sector agencies
appear to be shifting the responsibilities onto NGOs.”

Labour: “While the Labour Party is yet to release all of its policies related to the prevention of family and sexual violence, we are committed to a system that supports victim-survivors and puts an end to violence.”

Opportunity: “We support reinstating and increasing funding for sexual violence prevention. However, we see sexual violence prevention as a cross-government responsibility, rather than something that sits solely within either Health or Justice.
Effective prevention requires action across health, justice, education and social services, including early intervention, education, addressing the drivers of violence, perpetrator intervention and effective support for victims and survivors.
We support a more consistent and evidence-based approach to prevention funding, with decisions informed by experts, survivors and evidence about what works. Our proposed 10-year cross-party Health Plan would provide greater stability and predictability for the health components of prevention and support, but sexual violence prevention should not be confined to the health system.
We want to move away from the three-year funding cycle in which priorities and programmes can change with successive governments. Long-term, cross-government planning would provide greater certainty for specialist services and allow effective prevention programmes to be sustained and evaluated.
We therefore support restoring and increasing investment in sexual violence prevention, with funding and priorities determined through a coordinated, expert-led cross-government approach.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Disabled communities have many concerns regarding the Disability Support Services Act : that it reinstates a charity model of funding, instead of supporting the human rights of disabled people; and that it makes families responsible to provide for their disabled family before any state funding is available. Prioritising the wider family as first carers, with no oversight and without offering sufficient funding and resources for specialist external support, means that disabled people who lack loving and capable family will be punished for the care they need, or just denied it, leading to violence, abuse and neglect.   The Act also “sidesteps” the recent Supreme Court ruling that recognised some family carers as employees.

The Act needs to be repealed, and adequate funding and a rights framework put in place to ensure disabled people have adequate incomes and resources, and autonomy over how to use their incomes – that is, decision-making power over their own lives.

Disabled people are more likely than non-disabled people to be targeted for violence. We support Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission’s 2021 call for a twin-track approach, where Tiriti-based mainstream general services are disability literate, while Tiriti-based specialised services are also available with a focus on upskilling people – shifting perceptions of disability, and co-designing everything with disabled people. Our ask here is in regard to mainstream violence response services: they should not be more difficult (or impossible) to access for disabled victim-survivors.

For more information on violence response services for whaikaha, see Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission’s reports Whakamahia te Tūkino kore Ināianei, ā Muri Ake Nei (Acting Now for a Violence and Abuse Free Future) and Whakamanahia Te Tiriti, Whakahaumarutia te Tangata (Honour the Treaty, Protect the Person).

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the current Government has made it harder for disabled people to access the support they deserve and which enables them to participate equally in life
and their communities. Our Manfiesto specifically commits to drawing on the Enabling Good Lives approach to guide how government agencies work with disabled people, which would include victim-surivivors.”

Labour: “While the Labour Party is yet to release its policy in this area, we are committed to ensuring that disabled people are able to thrive. That is why we have a long-standing commitment to both the principles that underpin Enabling Good Lives and the UNCRPD.”

Opportunity: “We have spoken against the Disability Support Services Act, and maintain our objection. The autonomy and agency of disabled people must be prioritised. We would like to see our Citizens’ Income implemented, with top-ups for disabled whānau as needed.
We support the principle that disabled people should have the resources, autonomy and decision-making power to live their lives with dignity and independence. We agree that the concerns raised about the Disability Support Services Act need to be addressed, particularly where funding arrangements risk placing unreasonable responsibility on families or compromising the autonomy and rights of disabled people.
We also strongly support ensuring that violence-response services are accessible to disabled victim-survivors. Disabled people can face additional barriers to accessing support, and mainstream services need to be disability-literate and accessible, while specialist services should also be available where required.
We support a twin-track approach, with mainstream services equipped to respond effectively to disabled people and appropriately resourced specialist services available where needed. Disabled people should be involved in the design and evaluation of these services, rather than having decisions made for them.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

The gender definitions bill and the removal of the voluntary Ihi Aotearoa Guiding Principles for the Inclusion of Transgender People in Community Sport (which support safety and enjoyment for all participants) are the shameful result of imported hate and discrimination which are ultimately dangerous for all women (cis as well as trans) as well as the directly targeted group of trans folk. Transphobia – like misogyny and homophobia – has no place in Aotearoa New Zealand and we reject it utterly.

Currently, hate speech legislation only protect people on the basis of race, ethnicity, skin colour and national origin, and not on the basis (for example) of religion, disability, sexuality or gender (Newsroom, 2022). Overseas, “litmus test” examples of hate speech include characterising group members as animals or as paedophiles, or denying or celebrating past persecutions of group members (RNZ, 2026, describing a 2024 Federation of Islamic Associations (FIANZ) report).

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the Green Party oppose the gender definitions bill and would reinstate guidance of the inclusion of trans people in sports. Our Manifesto also commits to extending hate speech laws to cover religion, gender, disability and rainbow communities.”

Labour: “Labour opposes the Legislation (Definitions of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill. While the Labour Party is yet to release its full Rainbow policy, we are committed to ensuring that Rainbow communities are heard, respected and able to be authentically themselves.
In Government Labour asked the Law Commission to review whether we need hate speech laws and if so, what these should look like after previous initial work done by the then Labour Government. Unfortunately, the current government cancelled that review by the Law Commission.
The Law Commission has continued work on hate crimes, reporting back in July that hate crime laws are not working well in practice, but the existing legal framework should be improved rather than creating new offences. We’re still working through the recommendations by the Law Commission.”

Opportunity: “Opportunity submitted against the gender definitions bill, and continues to oppose it. We support an approach that respects the rights, dignity and safety of transgender people.
We also support the principles underpinning the Ihi Aotearoa Guiding Principles for the Inclusion of Transgender People in Community Sport. Participation in community sport should be safe, inclusive and enjoyable for everyone, and guidance should support sporting organisations to achieve this while recognising the needs of all participants.
We support closing gaps in New Zealand’s hate speech protections where there is evidence that existing law leaves people vulnerable to serious hatred, intimidation or incitement to violence because of characteristics such as disability, religion, sexual orientation or gender. As mentioned in a previous response, we would approach any enhancement to hate speech legislation with caution. There is conflicting evidence of the efficacy of such legislation in reducing either in-person violence or hate speech online, but growing evidence of hate speech legislation being used to silence legitimate political speech. We must approach such emotive policy questions with a strong adherence to evidence.
We reject transphobia, misogyny and homophobia and support efforts to prevent hatred and violence directed at people because of who they are.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

“A friend recognized abusive behavior purely because we spoke about it in health under the RSE stuff and I feel like it saved her life.” – Petition signatory

In 2020, new RSE school guidelines (Years 1-8; Years 9-13)  were expert-led, and inclusive of Tiriti o Waitangi, and diverse sexualities, gender identities and cultures. The guidelines were world-leading in supporting healthy and respectful relationships and attitudes among young people as well as their confidence and self-esteem, and were fit-for-purpose to help prevent relationship violence.

But this key cornerstone of early prevention of violence has been removed. In its place, is a proposed ideological, inappropriate and inadequate relationships and “sex” education – no longer “sexuality” education – which fails in the critical missions of violence prevention and support of respect and social wellbeing, including ignoring te Tiriti o Waitangi, and excluding diverse genders and sexualities. Māori and non-Māori violence prevention and health experts share widespread concerns.

So we need not only the immediate reinstatement of the expert-led, Tiriti-based and LGBTQI+ inclusive 2020 RSE guidelines, but also an ongoing process of updating and improving the 2020 guidelines and underlying curriculum, to ensure they’re always fit-for-purpose for all communities (including disabled children) in a fast-changing and increasingly online world. The ongoing improvement process needs to share decision-making across Tiriti partners; be led by experts, in Māori and non-Māori education, violence prevention and health; and implement the Education Review Office recommendations to increase consistency in RSE teaching across schools, while retaining the right of parents to remove their children from RSE if they wish.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the Green Party will restore Tiriti-based, inclusive RSE guidelines — including education on healthy relationships, diverse identities and sexualities, and affirmative consent — in all schools, including improvements on how the guidelines can better reflect genuine Tiriti partnership.”

Labour: “Labour strongly opposed the government’s decision to remove RSE guidelines, which was clearly designed to put the interests of NZ First over those of our tamariki. We’re sick of important decisions regarding what our children learn being made by politicians only – which is why Labour will establish the Independent Council for Curriculum and Assessment (ICCA), which will develop the curriculum – including RSE guidelines – under the leadership of experts.”

Opportunity: “We support retaining the strengths of the 2020 Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) guidelines, including their explicit recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, inclusive and culturally responsive approach, and emphasis on healthy and respectful relationships.
We agree that RSE should be comprehensive sexuality education rather than a narrow focus on sex education. It should include age-appropriate learning about healthy relationships, consent, boundaries, respect, violence prevention and online safety, beginning early and building progressively through the school years so that all young people have the opportunity to develop these skills.
We also support ongoing improvement of RSE. Any future changes should be evidence-informed and developed through genuine partnership with Māori, including Māori experts, whānau, teachers, young people and relevant health and violence-prevention experts. We would not want to simply freeze RSE in its 2020 form; it should continue to evolve as evidence, technology and the experiences of young people change.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

Since 2019, Section 7AA was a step in the right direction, starting to build trust between Oranga Tamariki and Māori communities, whose whānau have every reason to fear racial discrimination and child uplift. It provided “a directive for the ministry to partner with Māori communities for the betterment of mokopuna” (Kendra Cox, University of Auckland, 2024). Its repeal was an attack on te Tiriti o Waitangi, under the non-evidenced guise of child safety, and was advised against by iwi, hapū, hapori and whānau Māori, and the Waitangi Tribunal. Oranga Tamariki’s own advice warned that repealing “may worsen the safety, stability, and well-being of our children with the greatest needs.”

While the law must be restored, damage to relationships has already been done. Increased resourcing – primarily directly to Māori organisations, as well as Oranga Tamariki – is required for this vital and sensitive work for the country’s most targeted and under-served mokopuna.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party is committed to going beyond the reinstatement of section 7AA by amending the Oranga Tamariki Act so that it protects tamariki Māori and explicitly embeds whānau participation in decision-making to exercise iwi or hapū authority. We are also committed to ensuring this work is properly resourced”

Labour: “Labour is committed to restoring the Oranga Tamariki Chief Executive’s specific duties regarding the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi (section 7AA).”

Opportunity: “We agree with reinstating s 7AA. We would like to see what additional resourcing is needed and where before agreeing to an increase in funding. We would like to see a Citizens’ Income directly lift thousands of people out of poverty. We have noted the Auditor-General’s overview of Oranga Tamariki’s procurement and contract management, but agree that many of the missteps would not have occurred had cuts to public services not been haphazard and absent evidence. As with everything, Opportunity supports longterm (minimum 10 year) planning for issues as important as the structure that maintains children’s welfare, rather than 3-yearly piecemeal funding.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

All credible evidence shows military-style camps are a huge risk factor for abuse of disadvantaged children and rangatahi, however well-intended; the current government suggested their military-style camps would be different this time– but already they have been the site of publicly-known assaults. The risk for further PTSD and lives ruined – of both attendees and the whānau and communities around them – is too great.

Instead, attention and focus is required on the Royal Commission on Abuse in Care recommendations 39-69 regarding care safety, including: care safety principles for services to adopt; a National Care Safety Strategy; an independent Care Safe Agency; care safety standards and non-compliance penalties; accreditation for care providers; vetting, registration and good training for workers; and a response to complaints which is timely and effective.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “Yes, the Green Party will end military-style academies, raise the age of criminal responsibility and ban the detention of young people in the company of adults in all circumstances. We will also implement all recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, in consultation with people with lived
experience.”

Labour: “Labour has committed to abolishing all military camps for rangatahi. Will also will continue to implement the care and safety recommendations of the Royal Commission on Abuse in care.”

Opportunity: “Strongly agree. Abolish all military-style bootcamps and implement abuse in care recommendations.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps

The loss of the North Shore Women’s Centre and its support for domestic violence victims, new mothers and women needing legal advice is deeply felt, and reduces assistance for women at high risk of harm and distress. They were one of a number of community groups doing superb supportive work with women and their whānau – such as Homebuilders in Warkworth – who all closed down due to Oranga Tamariki withdrawing funding. One mum told us Homebuilders were “literally a lifeline” and that their accessible counselling got her through “one of the most stressful periods of my life.”

Women-specific centres and women, family & whānau community supports – services trusted within communities – need to be reinstated with long-term, committed and reliable funding.

Kia Haumaru self-defence courses – now completely cut from government funding- helped women to identify, avoid and leave abusive relationships, in culturally-appropriate classes. Participant feedback from all ethnicities was always 10/10 superlative: “Needed for every woman in the country”; “[Tutor] was excellent, the best I have come across in community supports”; “I would recommend this for all women and gender diverse people” Enabling more women to participate in these courses would help support violence prevention in Aotearoa NZ.

8 Oct: Party responses

Te Pāti Māori: “yes”

Green party: “The Green Party supports increasing funding for services that support women to feel confident in their communities.”

Labour: “Labour recognises the incredible services that women centres provide local communities. Labour believes in investing in evidence-based community-led solutions which seek to end violence.”

Opportunity: “We support reinstating funding for women’s centres and other women-specific and whānau community services where they provide effective, evidence-based support. We recognise that recent funding cuts have had significant impacts on women and communities that rely on these services.
We support long-term, reliable funding based on evidence of what works, rather than short-term funding cycles that leave effective services vulnerable to changing government priorities. Stable funding, with appropriate evaluation and accountability, is more likely to deliver sustained outcomes.
We also support increased access to evidence-based self-defence and personal safety programmes, including culturally appropriate programmes for women and gender-diverse people, as part of a broader approach to preventing sexual and family violence.”

National, ACT, NZ First: No response

Back to all steps