Echo Chamber: Cut it, gut it or re-up it, pay equity is ready to overshadow the budget
Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus.
The current parliamentary sitting block has been under way for only a week, but already, signs of weariness are beginning to show on the faces of our MPs. With a slew of announcements in the last seven days – a member's bill to ban social media for under-16s (then some real government work), redress for abuse in state care survivors, a Waitangi Tribunal review, just to name a few things – and parliament sitting under urgency, patience is short, wrinkles are deep, and frowns are plentiful.
The pressure seemed to weigh deeply on the prime minister, who trotted past the opposition benches before Tuesday's question time kicked off, stopped himself in front of Labour leader Chris Hipkins, and gave his opposition counterpart a seemingly sharp jab in the knee to get his attention. Hipkins, slumped in his seat, just shrugged and grimaced as Christopher Luxon leaned over him.
They might have been trying to figure out who the bigger liar was in the pay equity debacle, and couldn't quite crack the case before the speaker's entrance started proceedings. As the saying goes, there are always three sides to a story: yours, mine and the truth – or in this case, one political party, another political party, and the women of tomorrow.
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick was first up on oral questions, in a back-and-forth with Luxon over the cutting of 33 pay equity claims in favour of a regime that will make it harder for women workers to launch new claims. Luxon, having already spent the morning fielding anti-government/pro-union propaganda, responded that, well, this new legislation simply fixed an 'unaffordable' system which let librarians think that reading books all day is the same kind of boring as waiting to catch pāua poachers all day.
'And who are you compared to?' Swarbrick called across the barracking benches, before Brownlee swung his fingers and shut the orchestra up.
Then it was the 'Right Honourable Christopher Hipkins'. Thank you, Mr Speaker, the Labour leader grinned, but Chris is usually fine. If it was meant to be funny, Brownlee wasn't having it: 'I wasn't inquiring as to your health. Just ask your question.'
Another back-and-forth over pay equity with the prime minister saw Luxon keep to the 'well, as I've said to you, we're simply fixing your broken system' line. But Chippy remained cheerful as questions moved to finance minister Nicola Willis, who was able to laud the budget's forecast that the government will be able to make a withdrawal from the Super Fund for the first time in 2028.
'Thanks to Labour!' Hipkins called. His squeaky little voice kept popping up, like a mouse scurrying along the floorboards: 'Thank you, Labour!' And again, a little chirp – 'just say thank you!'
'The leader of the opposition says, 'thank you, Labour,'' Willis responded. 'I say, 'thank you, taxpayers'.'
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer came in with questions about the barring of unions from the budget lockup for the first time. She pressed on despite Luxon hiding behind the finance minister, and a groan sounding from the government benches – it was Act's David Seymour, wearing a boyish grin on his face.
'Ka pai, David? Can I carry on?' Ngarewa-Packer asked. Not leaving the attack dog politics to the minor party leader giggling in his seat, National's number one defence, transport minister Chris Bishop, got into position. Again, the prime minister is not responsible for who attends the budget lockup, Bishop said, before piping up a few minutes later – had the prime minister perhaps seen reports of a certain political party failing to even show up to budget debates?
That set Brownlee off again, reminding the House that it was 'inappropriate' to discuss the absence of another member within the House, and asking the prime minister to do so would be a breach of the standing orders. So of course, Winston Peters butted in.
Let me correct what has been said by the speaker, the NZ First leader offered. When someone talks about non-participation, they don't mean absence – just non-participation. And then, the icing on the cake: 'Words matter.'
'I'm a very, very foolish man,' Brownlee replied. 'I should've understood that right at the start. None the less, my ruling stands.' He kept the same energy when Labour's Kieran McAnulty rose for a point of order as soon as Luxon looked like he was ready to throw the former Labour government under the bus again: 'Some people would say you're fast, others would have a different view.'
He's a man of great wit and little patience, that speaker. Does anyone spare a thought for Gerry Brownlee at the end of the day? It can't be easy to deal with all these cun-… Oh wait, you can't print that!
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
6 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill to replace Three Waters passes final hurdle
By Lillian Hanley of RNZ The government's final piece of legislation to implement 'Local Water Done Well', replacing Labour's Three Waters, has passed its third reading. National MP Ryan Hamilton hailed the legislation, saying "hello localism and choice", while Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi called it "an atrocious piece of work." The government has said the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the Local Government (Water Services) (Repeals and Amendments) Bill provide a "flexible" framework for local councils to address challenges related to drinking water, waste water and stormwater services. NZ First's Casey Costello led the debate, calling it the government's "urgently required" plan to "address challenges with New Zealand's water services." "Simply put, chronic underinvestment and the lack of sustainable management of local government water services has come home to roost." Costello said councils would be able to choose the best structure for "financially sustainable water services that meet regulatory requirements and local needs". "I want to keep repeating that Local Water Done Well will maintain local ownership, choice, and decision-making. That gives councils the best shot at identifying their most pressing problems and the right approach to solving them." National MP Ryan Hamilton hailed the passing of the government's Three Waters replacement. "Goodbye Three Waters, hello Local Water Done Well. Goodbye co-governance, hello locally chosen and designed options. "Hello localism and choice." NZ First's Jamie Arbuckle highlighted the removal of "co-governance" in the legislation. "Isn't it great to get rid of co-governance from this piece of legislation? Get rid of it! We are about New Zealanders. We are about Kiwis." But the opposition slammed the legislation, with Labour's Megan Woods saying it "shifts the financial risk" to councils and ratepayers. She criticised the government's response to Three Waters as it had got rid of the economies of scale and "the money that could have been saved", allowing for a "proliferation" of water service entities. "What the government said was 'Oh no there's two few entities, there's not enough room for local decision making under the previous government plans'." But the changes had led to an average increase in water charges for households, she said. Tangi Utikere, Labour's spokesperson for local government, said there was no adequate financial support to those councils for the changes the government was seeking to implement. Te Pāti Māori's Mariameno Kapa-Kingi criticised the government for "ignoring the role of Māori in the delivery of water services." "Removing these provisions is not progress, it is reform, it is regression and it is deeply and only racist." She said the bill in its thinking and design ignored and dismissed how "tangata tiriti get to live here", referencing Te Tiriti o Waitangi. She implored the government to "get the education" and concluded by saying "what an atrocious piece of work."
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Almighty debt fight in Parliament, as Nicola Willis accuses Chris Hipkins and Chlöe Swarbrick of fiscal vandalism
'That is Fitch telling us that borrowing a lot more, as Opposition parties are proposing, would lead to a credit downgrade. 'That would increase the cost of government debt and also have a flow-on effect to the cost of household and business borrowing, as New Zealand would be seen as a more risky country to lend to,' Willis said. Labour has not released a fiscal plan, which would detail how much taxing, spending, and borrowing the party plans if it wins the next election. Hipkins has previously spoken about the need to borrow to invest in infrastructure. On Tuesday, he said, when asked by the Herald, that his party's fiscal plan would chart a path back to surplus. The Green Party has released a fiscal plan that includes $99.1 billion in additional revenue made up of about $89b in new taxation and the rest in climate taxes. The plan also includes additional borrowing for capital investment and a higher deficit in the last year of the forecast period. Finance Minister Nicola Willis during her standup at the Prime Minister's usual spot, hit out at Labour and the Greens. Photo / Mark Mitchell Under their plan, net debt would be about $44b higher at the end of the forecast period, a sum equivalent to just under 10% of GDP. Fitch's commentary, calling for a return to surplus and a reduction in debt levels to keep the current credit rating, is inconsistent with the Greens' plan, which ends up with more debt and a larger deficit. However, Swarbrick said Fitch's broader social and growth analysis might be more aligned with the Greens'. In general, Fitch noted that both National and Labour Governments had brought the books back into balance after an economic shock. The agency, warned, however, that recent experience had seen surpluses delayed and this could be a problem. 'Evidence of a weakening in the culture of fiscal responsibility would affect creditworthiness,' the commentary said. Willis said Hipkins had laid his 'stake in the ground' and that Labour was 'prepared to walk away' from a 'culture of fiscal responsibility'. 'Every New Zealander will pay the price if a Labour-Greens Government puts our fiscal reputation at risk,' Willis said. 'Team of vandals' - Willis Willis said Hipkins had departed from the 'orthodoxy' of previous Labour finance ministers like Michael Cullen. 'This is an altogether different path in which he seems to be walking a lot closer to Chlöe Swarbrick and her team of vandals, who want to gaslight New Zealanders into believing that if we just spent more and borrow more, everything would be better,' Willis said. 'Michael Cullen would never allow for the fiscally reckless approach that Chris Hipkins has been signalling,' Willis said. Hipkins, heading into his own caucus meeting, said Willis's attack had more to do with the Government wanting to divert attention from a sluggish economy. He said it was 'important that the Government balances its budget'. 'I notice that Nicola Willis has yet to do that. She'll be on to her third budget next year and there's not a surplus in sight,' Hipkins said. Hipkins promised that Labour would set its own fiscal rules in its pre-election fiscal plan, but he confirmed that these would include a return to surplus. 'We do need to get the books back into surplus. No government should be aiming to indefinitely run deficits,' Hipkins said. When asked whether one of the rules would be returning to surplus at some time, he said: 'Get the books back into surplus – yes.' Fiscal plans, which function like a draft budget for a political party, are not typically released until much closer to an election. Labour says its tax policy is coming later this year. Labour's last Budget included a primary fiscal rule 'returning the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) to a surplus and aiming for small surpluses thereafter'. 'This is vintage National Party, when they're in a hole, and they're in a very big hole at the moment, start throwing mud at the Labour Party, but the reality is their hole is getting deeper, they need to work out how to get themselves out of a hole without worrying about other political parties.' New Zealand's AA+ rating with Fitch dates back to 2022. Photo / Mark Mitchell Swarbrick hit back at Willis saying that 'when these made-up economic metrics, the likes of GDP, are superseding our focus on the wellbeing of people and planet, we've kind of lost the plot'. Swarbrick said that ratings agencies actually took a 'more sophisticated approach' in assessing the Government's finances than the Treasury. Swarbrick said, 'Luxon and Willis' decisions have seen productivity growth flatline, skilled workers deserting the country and deteriorating infrastructure placed under ever more pressure. 'Ironically, financial markets have a clearer grasp of fiscal responsibility than the Minister of Finance. They reward countries that successfully build economic resilience and punish those weakened by the chronic underinvestment favoured by Willis,' she said. Pointing to Fitch's concerns about the housing market and unemployment, Swarbrick said, 'The Government's decisions to withdraw public investment, in turn generating higher household debt and simultaneously increasing unemployment, is very bad for financial stability and debt-servicing.' New Zealand is one of just 12 countries to have a AA+ or AAA rating from Fitch. The current rating was obtained in 2022, under the last Labour Government and Finance Minister Grant Robertson. New Zealand had been downgraded to AA after the financial crisis and the Christchurch Earthquake In its commentary on that decision, and subsequent reviews, Fitch has stressed that forecasts show a 'fiscal consolidation', in which the Government runs a surplus and debt declines as a percentage of the GDP. National misses election surplus promise, Labour won't say it would have cut spending had it won election At the 2023 election, both National and Labour ran on fiscal plans that showed a surplus in 2027. National promised to reduce the amount of new spending each year by a cumulative $3.3b, meaning its 2027 surplus and subsequent surpluses were slightly larger than Labour's. Beginning in 2022, the Treasury began slashing its economic growth and tax revenue forecasts. This continued in the months after the election, when new forecasts showed the surplus shrinking, and has persisted to 2025. The result of this has been lower revenue than expected, pushing the forecast surplus out into the future. This has meant that despite Willis reducing spending growth, on balance, by far more than her fiscal plan promised in 2023, the deficit and overall borrowing levels are far higher. The Treasury reckons this year's deficit will be $15.6 billion, more than 10 times larger than the $1b deficit National promised on the campaign trial. Labour promised an even larger deficit of $1.5b. Given changes to GDP and revenue projections, that deficit would have increased too. On current forecasts, a surplus, by the traditional measure, is not forecast until the early 2030s. National and Labour are scrapping over how to fix the mess. Willis, noting the Government's large deficit, refuses to spend even more on stimulus, which some hope would speed an economic recovery, ultimately restoring the books in the process. Hipkins, on the other hand, refused to say he would have cut spending to keep to his fiscal promises, had he won the election. Willis rebuffed calls for more spending to stimulate the economy, saying that this spending would be 'the end of interest rate reductions'. 'Treasury has affirmed the best way to stimulate an economy in a downturn is through monetary policy ... I am concerned that without dropping interest rates we won't see the revival we all wish to see in the construction sector, our business sector, all of the private industries that rely on being able to borrow to generate the growth that New Zealanders want to see,' Willis said. Meanwhile Hipkins, would not say whether he would have dropped his spending and borrowing commitments had he won the election. Labour's 2023 plan included just over $3b more borrowing than National's. Hipkins did not definitively say he would have made cuts in light of the deteriorating finances. 'What I indicated before the election would have been our priorities, which was looking at how you get more effective spending. 'Take health, more money on preventative healthcare, like free prescriptions and making doctors' visits more accessible has the potential to save money, because you end up with fewer people in emergency departments,' he said. Asked whether Labour would have cut its cloth had it won in 2023, Hipkins said, 'We need to accept Nicola Willis has made this worse. Increasing unemployment is at least in part because of the decisions that this Government has taken. 'If I look at areas where I wouldn't have wanted to spend extra money, I wouldn't have wanted to spend extra money on Jobseeker benefits. I would have rather kept Kiwis in work.'
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
'Carnival's over': Peters celebrates Mallard's early exit
By Russell Palmer of RNZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters is celebrating former Speaker of the House Trevor Mallard being replaced as Ambassador to Ireland. Mallard was appointed for a three-year term in Dublin in 2022. But in a statement this afternoon Peters named Angela Hassan-Sharp for the role. Asked about Mallard, he said: "You know that famous song from The Seekers? Carnival's over". He said Mallard was "coming home and he's coming home early". Asked if he had a reason to bring Mallard home, he replied: "Yes, I do". "It's a circus where instead of looking at the national interest, you've got people like Jacinda Ardern appointing politicians to important jobs - and that should not be happening. "Their performance will never be up to scratch for goodness sake. You people surely understand that you train people, you give them decades of experience to get into important jobs, and all of a sudden you put a politician there with no training at all." No politicians should ever be assigned to diplomatic roles, he believed. "I'm saying, that we should not be having politicians in diplomatic jobs, full stop. I've opposed it in all my career, and soon I'll have corrected it for a third time." Asked the last time he spoke to Mallard, he said: "I can't remember ... it's got to be, oh, five years ago." "I cannot believe that Jacinda Ardern sent somebody like him after the way he behaved with respect to the protesters out here, turning up the noise, putting cold water over young children at night. This is a disgrace, and you guys should have been calling it out, not me," he told reporters. In 2022, Peters criticised Mallard's appointment to the role, saying it should never have happened and Mallard did not have the diplomatic judgement required to be an ambassador. "Mr Mallard has never demonstrated any understanding of the most fundamental elements of diplomacy itself," he said at the time. The former Speaker had Peters trespassed from Parliament's grounds after the then-former Deputy Prime Minister attended the protest occupation of Parliament's grounds. Peters sought a judicial review over the matter, and Mallard admitted at the High Court that issuing the trespass warning was "unreasonable and irrational" and that Peters had not acted in a way which would justify the move. Adrian Rurawhe as Speaker apologised to Peters on Mallard's behalf over the trespass when Mallard resigned to take up the role of ambassador. RNZ has sought comment from Mallard.
