This Isn't Fair—And It's Time To Fix It: HESSA Petition Calls For Inclusive Student Sports
This follows national attention on the exclusion of home-schooled students and HESSA's ongoing advocacy, including front-page features in the Waikato Times and Bay of Plenty Times, as well as coverage on RNZ's Checkpoint and website.
'This issue has struck a chord with people across the country,' says HESSA Chair Mel Ewart. 'There's a growing consensus that the current student sport system is unfair—and it's time for change.'
School Sport NZ and its regional partners currently exclude home-schooled students from participating in many local, regional, and national competitions. For example, a home-schooled table tennis team in Auckland has been barred from competing in the College Sport Auckland league. HESSA argues this exclusion is discriminatory and contradicts Sport NZ's own diversity and inclusion strategy.
'This is about fairness and kids being able to compete in sports with their friends and peers,' says Ewart. 'Home-school students are domestic students. They deserve the same opportunities to compete in student sports..
HESSA contends that public funding for student sport should be tied to inclusive practices that reflect the values of fairness and equal opportunities for all Kiwi students.
'School Sport NZ holds the social license to sanction student sport in Aotearoa,' says Ewart. 'With that comes a responsibility to ensure no student is excluded from competing simply because of how they are legally educated.'
The petition is now live and open for signatures. HESSA is encouraging all New Zealanders who believe in inclusive sport to sign and share it widely.
Sign the Petition on ActionStation
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
27 minutes ago
- 1News
Healthworkers want MPs to waive private healthcare while in office
A group of healthworkers — including specialists, GPs, nurses and paramedics — have signed an open letter to MPs asking them to waive private healthcare during their time in office. Politicians making critical decisions about the public health system system — to cut funding, defer maintenance, or implement restructures — should not be allowed to "insulate" themselves against the consequences, they write. Their prescription? All MPs — and the families of Cabinet ministers — should rely on the public system. The group's spokesperson, Northland cardiologist Marcus Lee, said the public deserved leaders who were so committed to public healthcare that they were willing to stake their family's wellbeing on it. ADVERTISEMENT "Essentially, we want fair and transparent leadership with integrity. We want people who have skin in the game." The test was whether politicians were "comfortable and confident" enough to rely on the public health system for their families, he said. "If it's good for them, it's good for us. If it's not good enough for them, it shouldn't be good enough for anyone." Nicola Willis and Simeon Brown in 2020 (Source: Getty) The letter asks MPs to consider questions including: Would I be comfortable with my child waiting six months for this procedure? Is this emergency department adequate for my elderly parent? Are these staffing levels sufficient for my family's safety? Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not believe having private health insurance meant he was out of touch with the problems besetting the public system. ADVERTISEMENT "I think we're well aware of the challenges in the healthcare system, which is why we've put a record amount of investment in," he said. "We inherited again a botched merger that just created a layer of bureaucracy and we've put the money in, we're hiring more people, we've got clarity on the targets. "We're starting to see some stabilisation of those targets and in some cases improvements on those health targets. "But we now need a high performing Health NZ, and that's what we're fixated on." Labour's health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall said MPs with private health insurance were "betting their own money against the public system". "Ministers of Health should place a bet on the public health system succeeding and meeting New Zealanders' needs. Having private health insurance is a sign that you're not willing to place that bet." Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins — a former health minister — took a less hard-line approach. "I got health insurance 20 or 30 years ago as a union membership benefit and I've kept it since then, although I'm fortunate I haven't really had to use it. "I'm not going to begrudge people who have it. But I want to make sure that, if you haven't, you still get the standard of care you deserve." Health Minister Simeon Brown said he did not have private health insurance but he would not impose that choice on anyone else. "Ultimately there's a large number of New Zealanders who use health insurance, that's a fantastic part of our health system, and ultimately people make individual choices." Brown said his focus was on timely access to quality healthcare for New Zealanders, which included making better use of the private sector. "We will work with private hospitals to unlock capacity, publicly funded [patients] but in private hospitals to speed up access." ADVERTISEMENT Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Education Minister Erica Stanford both had private health insurance. Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey did not, saying he is "happy using the public health system". Other National MPs were more coy. Minister of Climate Change, Energy, Local Government and Revenue, Simon Watts: "I won't answer that, it's a personal question." Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Disability Issues, Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston: "That's not a question in the public interest." Bay of Plenty MP Tom Rutherford: "I'm not interested in talking about that. It's not necessary for people to know — I don't go out into the general street and ask people about their health insurance." Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March said it was "quite rich" to see politicians not being worried about the state of the public healthcare system, when they had the means to pay for private insurance or private care. ADVERTISEMENT "That is why we are really concerned with the Government's flirtation with privatising more of our public healthcare system, which will ultimately see our poorest less able to access basic healthcare." For some Labour MPs, it was a matter of principle. Kelston MP Carmel Sepuloni: "I believe, as politicians, if we're going to be working to ensure the healthcare system works for everyone, we should be reliant on it too." Nelson MP Rachel Boyack: "My father was a public health chief executive so I've always had a strong belief in the public health system, and that the health system should be available to all New Zealanders, and that includes me as an MP." Mt Albert MP Helen White could understand why some people opted to have it, but it was not for her: "I just think that I should live by my principles. Also I probably couldn't afford it. I know I'm on a decent salary, but it's a lot of money." Mt Albert MP Helen White says she probably couldn't afford health insurance. (Source: 1News) Labour MP Ginny Andersen said health insurance was not in her budget: "By the time I pay my mortgage and my insurance and my rates and feed my children." ADVERTISEMENT ACT Party leader David Seymour, who is also the Associate Health Minister, said the healthworkers made "an interesting argument" — but, in his view, MPs should come from a broad range of backgrounds. "I don't think you should have to fit into a sort of ideological straight-jacket to do that." The healthworkers behind the letter said MPs who refused to give up their private safety net would be revealing "exactly what they really think about our healthcare system". "We'll be watching to see who has the courage to put their family where their policies are."
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Almost A Third Of NZ Households Face Energy Hardship – Reform Has To Go Beyond Cheaper Off-Peak Power
The spotlight is again on New Zealand's energy sector, with a group of industry bodies and independent retailers pushing for a market overhaul, saying the sector was 'broken' and 'driving up the cost of living'. The Commerce Commission and the Electricity Authority has already established a joint task force, after prices peaked in 2024, to investigate ways to improve the performance of the electricity market. The Authority recently announced new rules requiring larger electricity retailers to offer lower off-peak power prices from next year. The government is also expected to make further announcements on the sector. But the question is whether these changes will do enough to help New Zealanders live affordably in dry and warm homes. Some 30% of households face energy hardship. This means they struggle to afford or access sufficient energy to meet their daily needs. Caused by a combination of poor housing quality, high energy costs and the specific needs of vulnerable residents, energy hardship can lead to serious health issues and high hospital admission costs. We know from our own research over the past 18 years that having power disconnected can negatively affect health and wellbeing. People have told us that not being able to afford enough power to keep warm made them more likely to get sick and exacerbated existing health conditions. They described mental distress from unaffordable electricity and the threat of disconnection. Research participants used words such as 'stressed', 'anxious' or 'depressed'. They also spoke about having to choose between food and power bills. If power is disconnected, there can be additional costs from losing food in the fridge and freezer, as well as the problem of paying disconnection and reconnection fees when people already can't afford the bill. What's driving up power bills? In 2024, a 'dry year' that increased the value of hydro generation, combined with lower-than-usual wind and declining supply of gas, resulted in wholesale electricity price spikes. But these winter shortages aren't the only factor pushing up power bills. Electricity bills reflect several costs along the supply chain from generation to getting the electricity to the sockets in our homes. A new regulatory period for lines charges from April 2025 increased bills by $10 to $25 per month, depending on where you live. At the same time, low fixed daily charges are being phased out. This means the cost of being connected to the grid is the same no matter how much power is used. It is the poorest New Zealanders who are being hardest hit. The lowest income households spend a bigger proportion of their income on power compared to higher income households. Having electricity prices increase faster than inflation will put even more families at risk. The average household electricity bill was up 8.7% in May 2025 compared to June 2024. According to a recent Consumer NZ survey, 20% of respondents said they struggled to pay their power bill in the past year. Tackling hardship The new Consumer Care Obligations might help reduce some of the risks. Power companies must now comply with these obligations when working with households struggling to pay their bills, are facing disconnection or have someone in the home who is medically dependent on electricity. If households feel their power company is not meeting these obligations, they can contact Utilities Disputes, a free independent electricity and gas complaint resolution service, or the Electricity Authority. But multiple changes are needed to address the different parts of the energy hardship problem. Improving home energy efficiency through schemes like Warmer Kiwi Homes is crucial. Introducing an Energy Performance Rating for houses would make it easier for home buyers and renters to know how much it will cost to power a home before they move in. This would also help target energy hardship support. The government can also make electricity more affordable by supporting not-for-profit power companies. Another good move would be to help more households to install rooftop solar by providing access to long-term low-interest finance. Lower prices during off-peak hours are a good start. But it is clear the sheer size and complexity of the problems mean government action, with community and industry collaboration, needs to go beyond slightly cheaper electricity when there is less demand. Disclosure statement Kimberley O'Sullivan receives funding from a Rutherford Discovery Fellowship administered by the Royal Society Te Apārangi, the Health Research Council, the Ministry of Business, Employment, and Innovation, and Lotteries Health Research.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
FIANZ Calls For ‘Hate Speech' Laws Again; Is Their Harmony Accord Commitment Real?
The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) once again is calling for 'hate speech' laws against their critics in the name of social cohesion. This undermines the spirit of the Harmony Accord, which is a promising document to foster mutual understanding through dialogue, says Stephen Franks, Chairperson of the Free Speech Union. 'The Accord expressly commits the parties to respecting freedom of speech. If FIANZ has immediately reneged, their commitment is suspect. Defining and seeking punishment for 'Islamophobia' has been the Trojan horse for resuscitating blasphemy laws in other free societies. Leading politicians in the UK are currently fighting against such an attempt. 'Censorship is poison to social cohesion. People charged or jailed for expressing fears about a religion will rationally resent the groups asking the Police to silence their fears. We're seeing the results right now in the UK, in the disorder fueled by long suppression of the truth about the rape grooming gangs, and the gags on questioning illegal immigration. 'Proposals to criminalise criticism of religion, even under the banner of combating 'hate', would grant religious beliefs legal privileges that conflict with liberal democratic values. New Zealanders must remain free to challenge and debate religious doctrines without the threat of prosecution. 'Censorship is counterproductive. It does nothing to change views. It often draws more attention to the very opinions it's trying to ban. Counter-speech is more constructive. It allows bad ideas to be challenged, not buried. The Government has already rightly rejected 'hate speech' laws after tens of thousands of Kiwis pushed back. 'We should not risk turning an Accord that shows tolerance and mutual respect into scheming to undermine core democratic freedoms. A forced silence is not social cohesion.'
