MIL Email Publisher (NZ)

Source: Break Free From Plastic

On August 9, 2026, the Chair of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution Julio Cordano shared an informal reference document titled “Aid to Negotiations” ahead of the anticipated resumption of negotiations for an international legally binding agreement to end plastic pollution.

This document was a culmination of all the informal talks that happened after electing the Chair in INC 5.3 in Geneva, Switzerland in February 2026. The document is meant to “aid” the discussions in the next informal heads of delegation meeting that is set to take place in Bangkok on September 27-30, 2026.

In his explanatory note, Cordano said that the document was informed by past texts and discussions that happened in previous INCs, but critics are quick to notice that most of the ambitious treaty elements that garnered the support of more than a hundred Member States in past discussions were missing from the recently released document.

The Chair said that he hopes that this document will help to “begin identifying possible bridging approaches and solutions” but many are wary that the current text is bound to bridge the weakest and most watered down measures without articles pertaining to continued plastic production and chemicals in plastics.

Melissa Aguayo, Co-Coordinator for Break Free From Plastic, calls on all Member States to bring back the important provisions, terms, and key measures from previous texts that obligate States to act towards ending plastic pollution. “The text cannot be accepted as is,” said Aguayo. “The process is raising serious concerns about legitimacy and trust. This document emerged from closed-door sessions that once again excluded civil society, while critical issues were kept off the formal agenda, undermining the integrity of the process.”

Break Free From Plastic members respond to the Chair's Aid to Negotiations:

Eskedar Awgichew Ergete, Executive Director, Eco Justice Ethiopia, said:

“The Chair's Aid to Negotiations falls short of the justice centered ambition that governments agreed to in UNEA 5/14. A treaty that treats upstream obligations as optional, sidelines independent science, and weakens global decision making cannot end plastic pollution. It only protects the interests of those who profit from it. For African countries and frontline workers who live with the daily realities of waste colonialism, this text is not balanced; it is inequitable. We need a treaty that confronts plastic production, embeds worker centered just transition, and upholds the rights of communities most affected. Anything less is a retreat from the mandate and a failure of global responsibility.”

Nyebon Faustin, Executive Director of Appui aux Initiatives Communautaires pour l'Environnement Durable (AICED), said:

“Plastic pollution is, above all, a matter of human health and survival. Even before contaminating our ecosystems, plastic and the toxic substances associated with it affect our health–including that of unborn children–thereby compromising their development and humanity's future. The Chair of the INC, has the power to turn the tide by setting the foundations for countries to take action towards an ambitious, legally binding global treaty based on an approach that covers the entire lifecycle of plastic, from production to end-of-life.”

Salisa Traipipitsiriwat, Senior Campaigner and Southeast Asia Plastics Project Manager at Environmental Justice Foundation, said:

“The Chair's Aid to Negotiations does not reflect the outcome ambitious countries have worked for. Its provisions leave the pace and action against plastic pollution largely where the world already stands today, without the binding commitments that would justify negotiating a legally binding instrument. It is not possible to address plastic pollution while leaving production out of the conversation. Upstream measures to reduce plastic at the production stage must be part of any credible outcome. This is a moment for high-ambition member states to hold firm, make their voices heard, and demand a text that truly matches the urgency of this crisis.”

Muriel Papin, Executive Director, No Plastic in my Sea, said:

“This text, which was intended to facilitate future negotiations, is extremely disappointing and falls short of the ambition set out in the original mandate. It is a war of attrition, which favours the lowest common denominator, and one which the ambitious countries – despite being in the majority – are now facing.”

Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director of OceanCare, said:

“This treaty is meant to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment. What the Ocean needs most from this treaty-upstream measures to prevent plastic getting into the environment in the first place-is what it is least likely to get. Member States need to stand by their previous positions and refuse to settle for this low-ambition document. They must demand that their ambitious proposals be reintroduced and reflected in the text going forward.” [see interview with The Guardian]

Christina Dixon, Ocean Campaign Lead of Environmental Investigation Agency, said:

“One year after countries rejected a weak outcome in Geneva, they are now being presented with much the same level of ambition, repackaged as progress. Key measures that could tackle the problem at its source remain diluted, deferred or dropped altogether and new proposals remain totally absent. Ultimately, the world needs a treaty that bends the curve on plastic production and pollution, not one that bends to the lowest common denominator.” [see full statement]

David Azoulay, Director of Environmental Health at the Center for International Environmental Law, said:

“The Chair called this draft a 'no surprises' document, and on that count, it delivers. The text is the lowest common denominator. And it is indeed no surprise that a text developed behind closed doors, following a meeting where production, chemicals, and decision-making were kept off the formal agenda, and observers were kept out of the room, fails to reflect the science on what it will take to address the plastics crisis…” [see full statement]

About BFFP — #BreakFreeFromPlastic is a global movement envisioning a future free from plastic pollution. Since its launch in 2016, more than 2,700 organizations and 11,000 individual supporters worldwide have joined the movement to demand massive reductions in single-use plastics and push for lasting solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. BFFP member organizations and individuals share the values of environmental protection and social justice and work together through a holistic approach to bring about systemic change. This means tackling plastic pollution across the whole plastics value chain – from extraction to disposal – focusing on prevention rather than cure and providing effective solutions. www.breakfreefromplastic.org.

Source: Environmental Protection Authority

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is asking for feedback on a proposed group standard for treated seed.

Broadly, treated seed is seed that has been treated to protect it from disease or pests or to help it grow better.

Group standards set rules for managing hazardous substances that have similar uses or characteristics.

Dr Fernando Torres-Vélez, General Manager, Hazardous Substances and New Organisms, says, “We are proposing a new group standard to ensure that imported and locally manufactured treated seed is regulated consistently. Previously, seed treated overseas before importation was not subject to regulation and the regulation of manufactured seed in New Zealand has not always been applied consistently.

“We want to close that gap and address any potential risks these substances may pose to human health and the environment.”

The proposal sets rules for all treated seed covered by the group standard, along with additional controls for some seeds based on the classifications of the chemicals used to treat them.

These additional rules have been applied to help manage specific risks. The proposal also includes controls on the aerial application of treated seed.

“Our proposal takes a practical approach based on risk. It includes the rules needed to manage risks effectively and in a way that is proportionate.

“It would also streamline the rules for importing, manufacturing, supplying, storing, using, or disposing of treated seed,” says Dr Torres-Vélez.

“We are also requiring importers to annually report on the types and quantities of active ingredients used in seed treatment substances on treated seed being imported into New Zealand,” says Dr Torres-Vélez.

Some treated seed would be excluded from the group standard. This includes seed treated with active ingredients that are not approved for use in New Zealand, have certain high-hazard classifications, or are intended to be used as bait to kill vertebrate pests.

“We want to know whether the proposal is workable. This is our second consultation on this issue. We first consulted on the proposal in July 2024 and have been working on updating our proposals to ensure they work in practice.

“We want feedback from iwi and hapū representatives, importers and manufacturers, the agriculture and horticulture sector, users of treated seed, and anyone else with an interest in treated seed. We’ll use this feedback to help decide what changes should be made,” says Dr Torres-Vélez.

Public consultation opened on 18 August and closes on 29 September 2026.

A webinar will be held on Friday, 21 August 2026. Register here.

Find out more and have your say (https://www.epa.govt.nz/public-consultations/open-consultations/proposed-group-standard-for-treated-seed/)

Source: Network4

Four of New Zealand's largest Primary Health Organisations are calling on political parties to back a bipartisan 10-year strategy for primary care, saying that repeated policy changes are making it harder to plan services, invest in innovation and meet growing demand.

The proposal is part of an election manifesto released today by the Network4 (previously known as N4), which represents more than 1.8 million enrolled New Zealanders through Pegasus Health, Pinnacle Group, ProCare and Tū Ora Compass Health.

The group says primary care has become caught in short political cycles despite providing the majority of healthcare New Zealanders receive.

Network4 chair Barry Bragg said New Zealand needed a stable long-term direction for primary care regardless of which parties formed Government.

“General practice is the front door to our health system. It keeps people well, manages long-term conditions and helps keep people out of hospital.

“But long-term investment becomes difficult when priorities continue to change. We believe New Zealand needs a shared commitment to the future of primary care that extends beyond election cycles.”

The manifesto identifies five priorities that the Network4 is asking all political parties to support.

They are: 1. A long-term commitment to primary care, including establishing a bipartisan 10-year strategy for primary care 2. Sustainable funding that reflects the true cost of care 3. Building a strong sustainable primary care workforce 4. Delivering more healthcare closer to home 5. Providing technology in service of people by investing in nationally connected digital health systems that improve care and reduce administrative burden.

Mr Bragg said the proposals were based on the day-to-day experience of organisations supporting general practice across urban, rural, Māori, Pacific and high-needs communities.

“These are practical actions that would strengthen primary care and improve the performance of the wider health system.”

“When primary care is well supported, patients receive care earlier, hospitals face less pressure and communities achieve better health outcomes.”

“Our message is the same to every party contesting the election. Primary care needs a clear long-term direction, sustainable funding and the confidence to invest in the future.”

Mr Bragg said the manifesto was intended to support constructive discussion and support good policy making.

“We are asking every party to consider the same question: what does a sustainable primary care system look like over the next decade, and what commitments are needed to achieve it?”

“The challenges facing primary care are well understood. The opportunity now is to provide certainty for patients, clinicians and communities through stable policy, sustainable investment and a clear long-term direction.”

The manifesto highlights opportunities to improve integration between primary, community and hospital services, strengthen workforce development and make better use of digital technology already developed in New Zealand.

Mr Bragg said the proposed actions would create a more integrated patient centred health system, that ensures people can enrol with general practice, get an appointment when they need it and be able to afford it.

The full manifesto is available at https://www.procare.co.nz/network-4/.

Source: WEAll Aotearoa New Zealand

New polling has found overwhelming public support (82%) for a law requiring governments to consider the long-term impacts of their decisions on future generations when they develop laws and policies.

There was strong support across the political spectrum, with 90% of Greens, 89% of ACT, and 87% of NZ First voters supporting the idea of politicians being legally required to consider the long-term impacts of their decisions.

The polling, conducted by Talbot Mills, was commissioned by the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa (https://www.weall.org.nz) (WEAll Aotearoa) as part of their rangatahi-led, non-partisan campaign Tomorrow Together (https://www.weall.org.nz/tomorrowtogether). The cornerstone of the campaign is a call for a Future Generations Act for Aotearoa, inspired by the successful Welsh model (https://weall.org/resource/wellbeing-of-future-generations-wales-act/).

18-year old Nate Wilbourne, Future Generations Lead at WEAll Aotearoa, says the polling result shows the public wants to see politicians required to consider the impacts of today's decisions on the generations to come:

“This polling shows that Kiwis from across the political spectrum want our politicians to be required to make wise decisions for the long term. This is tradies, retirees, students and small business owners saying that politicians need to govern for a resilient, prosperous future, not just the next three years.”

“A Future Generations Act is common sense and doable. Wales has had a Future Generations Act since 2015, and Scotland, Australia and Finland are following suit.”

“Every big issue we’re grappling with right now – housing, climate, unemployment, cost of living, infrastructure – all these things are harder because we haven’t had strong enough long-term thinking, or enough willingness to make decisions that will take years to pay off. A Future Generations Act would make intergenerational fairness a legal requirement and in turn, push our leaders to plan for the long-run.”

“We are calling for political parties to work across the house to legislate a Future Generations Act.”

Additional polling from WEAll Aotearoa found 71% of New Zealanders believe that New Zealand’s economy is working “poorly” or “very poorly” for young people.

As Nate says, “This is what happens when we stop thinking about the long-term. This tells us we need to change course and start building an economy that works for people today and generations to come.”

Tom Rutherford said: “As one of Parliament's youngest MPs, I'm conscious that many of the decisions we make today will shape the New Zealand my generation and future generations inherit. We need to ensure long-term thinking is part of our decision-making, particularly on issues that cannot be solved in a single parliamentary term. I'm looking forward to contributing to a conversation about how we can build a better future for all New Zealanders.”

Arena Williams said: “Labour backs young people and is focused on building an affordable future here in Aotearoa with good jobs, healthcare when and where you need it, and warm homes. We must keep involving young people in politics and ensure their voices are included in the decisions that affect their lives.”

Notes to editor

About Nate Wilbourne: Nate Wilbourne is the Future Generations Lead at WEAll Aotearoa. Co-founder of Gen Z Aotearoa, he is a Forbes 30 under 30 change maker, and a globally renowned advocate for his work with young people, nature, and for future generations.

About the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa: WEAll Aotearoa is one of 25 hubs that make up the global Wellbeing Economy Alliance. We are a non-partisan and independent ‘think and do’ tank working to redesign Aotearoa New Zealand’s economy around the wellbeing of our people and te taiao. We use an evidence-informed approach and think upstream to develop practical, long-term solutions for the public good. Through building a new economic system we can address the root causes of major challenges such as poverty, inequality, climate change, and biodiversity loss.

About the campaign: Tomorrow Together is WEAll Aotearoa’s rangatahi-led campaign for a Future Generations Act for Aotearoa New Zealand. It is grounded in the belief that the choices we make today should ensure a thriving future for generations to come. We want to build a governance system that looks beyond short-term political cycles and deeply invests in the future, for the wellbeing of all of us. The campaign has been supported by the youngest MPs from four different parties: Tom Rutherford (National), Arena Williams (Labour), Tamatha Paul (Greens) and Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke (Te Pāti Māori), as well as Sir Geoffrey Palmer (https://www.weall.org.nz/videos/palmer), Christopher Finlayson, (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/wellbeing-economy-alliance-aotearoa-nz_hon-chris-finlayson-kc-proposes-four-reforms-activity-7442412804533403652-e2qi/) and the late Jim Bolger (https://www.weall.org.nz/videos/bolger).

Source: Workers First Union

Retail workers in understaffed stores are more than twice as likely to have experienced a safety incident as those in well-staffed stores, a major new survey of 2,403 retail workers has found.

The survey, released today by Workers First Union and one of the largest of retail workers conducted in Aotearoa, points to a single underlying cause running through nearly every finding: understaffing. Workers in stores that are always understaffed reported a safety incident at more than twice the rate of those in well-staffed stores (70% vs 30%) and were nearly five times less likely to always feel safe at work (11% vs 52%).

Read the full report.

More broadly, 59% of all respondents have experienced customer abuse or harassment in the last two years, and only 21% say they always feel safe at work.

Asked what single measure would most improve their safety, the top answer by far was simply more staff (38%) – ranking well ahead of cameras, guards, or any other specific security measure.

“Understaffing is the common driver of violence and abuse of retail workers, of feeling unsafe in stores, and of workers wanting to quit their retail jobs,” said Rudd Hughes, Workers First Deputy Secretary.

“What this shows is that understaffing is a health and safety issue and not some kind of smart business decision for an employer who’s looking to cut costs.”

“Employers must be held accountable for understaffing their stores and putting workers’ safety at risk to save money.”

Steve Day, a Nelson retail worker, was violently assaulted by a stranger in January 2025 while stocking shelves in a supermarket. His attacker, who the judge later described as committing an act of “persistent violence”, was sentenced to prison, and Mr Day said he still struggles with what happened.

“It was sheer luck for me that our night-fill staff were nearby, including one who happened to be a pub bouncer – he stepped in, or it could have been even worse,” said Mr Day.

“We were regular 111 callers for violent or disorderly customers. With limited Police resources to dispatch, you need good staffing levels to protect retail workers.”

“We don’t even need to intervene – just having more staff present and watching can make it much less likely that people kick off in the store.”

“Colleagues leave their jobs because of understaffing. It makes the job more stressful as well as increasing the amount of conflict and confrontation with customers.”

Workers First Union is calling on retailers to treat safe staffing levels as a health and safety issue, not a discretionary cost. Mr Hughes suggested several solutions to the persistent problem of dangerous staffing levels and abuse and violence against retail workers:

• Increased prosecutions of employers who risk staff safety by perpetually understaffing stores.
• Increased powers for workers to strike on health and safety grounds (described in more detail in Workers First’s ‘Take the Power Back’ paper).
• Increased responsibility and scope for Worksafe to investigate understaffing as a health and safety issue in workplaces.
• Requiring employers to provide additional EAP and medical costs for retail workers who experience assault and abuse in their workplace.

Mr Hughes said a sectoral bargaining mechanism like the Fair Pay Agreement (FPA) framework, was also key to setting minimum expectations and standards across the industry.

“Retail workers are not adequately paid for the risks they have to shoulder in stores,” said Mr Hughes.

“We depend on them as providers of an essential service, but the vast majority do not earn a living wage and are living week-to-week during a cost-of-living crisis. This has to change.”

“Anyone can be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time – but that should never be someone’s workplace.”

The survey also found:

• 43% of workers have been verbally abused or assaulted by a customer in the last two years, and 27% have had to confront a shoplifter.
• Only 57% of workers who experienced a safety incident reported it to their employer, and of those who did, only 49% were satisfied with how it was handled.
• Among workers who experienced a safety-related problem, 61% felt stressed or anxious as a result, and 35% said they dreaded coming to work.
• 61% of respondents said things had gotten worse for retail workers over the last year, and 53% expect things to get worse again over the next year.

The full report, Understaffed and Under Threat: Retail Staff Safety Survey 2026, is available at: https://workersfirst.nz/retail-staffing-2026

Source: SAFE For Animals

SAFE has launched a major new campaign calling for an end to factory farming in Aotearoa, backed by a public petition and a nationwide advertising campaign exposing the reality of intensive animal farming.

At least 128 million land animals are factory farmed in New Zealand each year, confined in systems that severely restrict movement, limit essential behaviours, and expose animals to injury, disease, chronic stress, and deprivation. Many are selectively bred for rapid growth or high production at the expense of their health, while painful procedures are used to manage the welfare problems that intensive systems create.

SAFE Campaign Manager Emma Brodie says factory farming is a systemic problem that demands a systemic solution.

“Factory farming treats extraordinary levels of suffering as business as usual.”

“In 2026, we should be asking whether cages, crates, and crowded sheds really belong in the future of Aotearoa.”

Verian research commissioned by SAFE in 2025 shows 78% of New Zealanders are concerned about the welfare of animals on New Zealand factory farms, while 72% oppose confining animals in factory farms. 88% believe animals should have the freedom to go outside when they want, and 93% believe codes of welfare should be regularly reviewed and updated to reflect the latest animal welfare science and public concerns.

Brodie says factory farming doesn’t persist because New Zealanders don’t care about animals, it persists because most people don’t see it.

“The scale of factory farming in Aotearoa is enormous, but the full picture is still hidden from public view. That distance makes it easier for factory farming to continue unchallenged.”

“Our campaign is about bringing factory farming into the light, challenging the rules and structures that keep it in place, and turning public concern into meaningful change.”

The campaign calls for an independent review of New Zealand’s animal welfare legislative framework, followed by the reforms needed to end factory farming systems.

More than 25 years after the Animal Welfare Act 1999 was enacted, SAFE says the framework is no longer fit for purpose. The law has not kept pace with what we know about animal welfare or addressed intensive farming systems that cause significant harm.

Recent decisions on the regulation of pig and hen farming have reinforced SAFE’s concerns, with the most intensive forms of confinement remaining permitted.

“We don’t have to accept that this is simply how farming works.

“We can choose differently. And we are asking New Zealanders to join us.”

SAFE is calling on New Zealanders to sign its petition and join the campaign to end factory farming in Aotearoa.

SAFE is Aotearoa’s leading animal rights organisation.

We're creating a future that ensures the rights of animals are respected. Our core work empowers society to make kinder choices for ourselves, animals and our planet.

Notes to the editors

• SAFE’s petition calls for an independent review of New Zealand’s animal welfare legislative framework, followed by the reforms needed to end factory farming systems.
• In December 2025, Parliament passed changes to the Animal Welfare Act that allow the continued use of farrowing crates and mating stalls for mother pigs, reversing a planned phase-out of these systems. The changes followed a 2020 High Court ruling that found the existing regulatory standards permitting their use were unlawful and invalid. Nearly 90% of submissions on the legislation opposed the changes. SAFE opposed the legislation and continues to call for an end to the intensive confinement of mother pigs.
• The Ministry for Primary Industries recently closed consultation on proposed changes to the code of welfare for layer hens. SAFE has raised concerns that the proposed standards fail to address some of the most intensive practices used in the egg industry, including colony cages. The proposal would also allow higher stocking densities in indoor barns, alongside continued routine practices such as beak trimming and the mass killing of male chicks. SAFE’s submission called for stronger action to end factory farming systems and the practices associated with them.

Source: New Zealand Nurses Organisation

The $25 million 2026 Winter Plan launched by Health Minister Simeon Brown in March to erase pressure on the health system has been an unmitigated disaster, Tōpūtanga Tapuhi Kaitiaki o Aotearoa NZNO says.

The Minister’s winter plan promised 378 FTEs, 71 extra winter hospital beds across key hospitals, 567 short stay beds through aged residential care facilities, expanded telehealth services, expansion of urgent and after-hours care clinic hours, and working with pharmacies to treat more minor conditions.

NZNO delegate and Waikato Hospital emergency nurse Tracy Chisholm says members are asking: “Where was the plan?” as there was very little sign of it this winter.

“In the Waikato Hospital Emergency Department (ED) the situation is worse than ever, even culminating in the tragic death of a patient in the waiting room toilet. Across the country it is no different. Look at hospitals in North Shore, Auckland, Gisborne, Christchurch, Whakatane and Wellington. The list goes on. Virtually every ED is working over capacity this winter with waiting times consistently running into double-digit hours.

“The promised rapid ward still hasn’t eventuated. There is no sign of the extra beds. We still have bed block and non-urgent patients taking up space in ED.

“We are going to lose ED staff because they can’t go on with this amount of pressure. Christchurch ED nurse Keziah Jones who has been in the news recently is not an isolated case.”

So, what do nurses suggest as a solution to this crisis?

Tracy Chisholm says the plan failed to address the fundamental issues impacting delivery of care – infrastructure and staffing.

“The greatest problem we have right now is chronic understaffing. Plans like the Minister’s failed one for the winter only intensifies the problem.

“There was no proper consultation with frontline health care workers before the plan was implemented. Instead of hiring workers who can actually assist patients waiting for hours they have hired managers in new roles who are clock chasing just to meet targets.

“The plan did not strike at the root cause of the problem. It fails to address existing staffing issues that are seriously undermining the standard of care in our hospitals.”