Latest news with #Beehive
Otago Daily Times
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Counting on the census
One of the great pillars on which modern New Zealand society is based has been scrapped by the government in a move which has shocked many. The five-yearly, or thereabouts, census has seemingly had its day, Statistics Minister Shane Reti reckons. He announced on Wednesday that New Zealanders had, for the last time, needed to scurry about looking for a pen to fill out the forms or pray that the more recently online documents would work as intended. Citing the need to save time and money, Dr Reti signalled the census will be replaced with "a smaller annual survey and targeted data collection". This will, according to the somewhat breathless Beehive media release, provide better quality economic data to underpin the government's "growth agenda". In line with this thinking, there will be no census in 2028, with the new approach starting in 2030. The new method of collecting nationwide statistics will sharpen the focus on delivering "more timely insights into New Zealand's population", the minister reckons. Good luck with that. While we should not automatically kibosh something before it has had a chance to prove its worth, it is difficult to see how what may effectively be a scattergun approach will be superior to the system which has developed over more than 170 years. The census has, of course, never been perfect. There were well-publicised issues with the 2018 and 2023 counts, and the five-yearly spacing has been interrupted several times, due to such events as the Depression, World War 2 and the Christchurch earthquake in February 2011. There were also concerns about the robustness of responses when the 2023 census was held the month after Cyclone Gabrielle. Dr Reti also has some justification for being concerned about the cost of the census, which has ballooned during the past decade. According to government figures, the 2013 census cost $104 million, but outlay for the 2023 one was $325m, and the now-ditched 2028 one was expected to cost around $400m. The huge leap in price is certainly concerning. Based on those government numbers, there can be no doubt running a census is a very expensive business. However, we need to remember, and perhaps remind the government, that the policies which are meant to benefit everyone across the country in healthcare, education, housing, transport and so on, actually cost many billions of dollars. The price-tag for a census which informs those policies is definitely not chicken feed, but money generally well-spent. Reaction to this week's announcement has largely been negative and expressing surprise at the move. There is particular concern about how cherry-picking data and using smaller sample sets will affect the rigour of information about Māori and Pasifika communities, and also people with disabilities, rainbow communities, and smaller ethnic groups. Dr Reti's promised land of a "sharpened focus on quality" when it comes to statistics will be extremely difficult to achieve. There are crucial questions to answer around how people's existing data within government agencies will be appropriately and sensitively used, who decides what to use and when, and who will oversee the process to make sure it is as comprehensive and fair as such a potentially fraught new system can be. We are uneasy that this move appears to be another example of this government not being especially interested in the science or data necessary for good decision-making and for making policy which is evidence-based, instead careening ever-more wildly across the political landscape in pursuit of zealotry-driven outcomes. We unapologetically support the census system we had, and believe in the provision of proper statistical data sets for modern-day needs and as a source of valuable information for the historians of the future Beware the old saying: "Garbage in, garbage out."
USA Today
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Beyoncé hints at going on tour again after final 'Cowboy Carter' concert in London
Beyoncé hints at going on tour again after final 'Cowboy Carter' concert in London Beyoncé-Knowles-Carter is still be in the middle of her 'Cowboy Carter' tour, but she already may be hinting at going on tour again. The Grammy-winning singer posted to her Instagram on the heels of her sixth show at Tottenham Hotspur Stadium in London. The performance marked her last concert in the U.K. on her Cowboy Carter and the Rodeo Chitlin' Circuit Tour. In the post, Beyoncé thanked Paul McCartney for writing his 1968 song 'Blackbird,' which she covers on her eighth studio album and performs on tour. However, fans were left reeling with excitement over what they saw as her foreshadowing another tour. She wrote: 'Thank you, Sir Paul McCartney, for writing one of the best songs ever made. Every time I sing it I feel so honored. And it is a full circle moment to wear your beautiful daughter's design. Thank you, London, for creating unforgettable memories for me and my family.' She continued, "Holla at 'ya when I come on tour again!' Of course, the caption instantly sent the Beehive buzzing with one fan commenting, 'Oh, it's confirmed!' Another wrote, 'Tour AGAIN!! Saving my Bey dollars now.' As fans know, 'Cowboy Carter' is the second part of a three-act project. Her seventh studio album 'Renaissance' is considered Act 1. The 2022 project earned her four Grammys, including best dance/electronic music album, making her the most decorated artist in the awards' history. Beyoncé has not yet announced Act 3 or any details surrounding it. As always though, there has been speculation within the Beyhive about the next project. And now, there's even more excitement and anticipation with the possibility of an upcoming tour. Until then, Beyoncé's Cowboy Carter era is fully underway. She first debuted her "Cowboy Carter" tour at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles on April 28 with 39 songs on the set list. Her shows have been filled with family, fashion, different music genres, and most notably country music and cultural commentary. The nine-city tour will span the U.S. and Europe with the grand finale taking place in Las Vegas on July 26. She is now set to head to Paris for three nights on June 19, 21 and 22. Follow Caché McClay, the USA TODAY Network's Beyoncé Knowles-Carter reporter, on Instagram, TikTok and X as @cachemcclay.
National Business Review
13-06-2025
- Business
- National Business Review
NBR Rich List, Fieldays, climate challenge and Orr's resignation
The NBR Rich List has drawn mixed reviews around the Beehive this week. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was almost euphoric about the List, saying it was fantastic the country had people with ambition, aspiration, and positivity and that we should all celebrate success. The Act Party's Workplace
RNZ News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Save our Sheep campaign erects billboards near Beehive
environment farming 25 minutes ago Billboards have gone up in full view of the Beehive and government offices in Wellington in a bold message to politicians to stop sheep farms being replaced by carbon forestry. Federated Farmers Meat and Wool Chair Toby Williams spoke to Charlotte Cook.
Scoop
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
Article – The Conversation Criminal law struggles to keep up with predatory uses of the technology for image-based sexual abuse. Its time to step back and build future-proof protections. The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
