Govt says do be hasty
Ms Brooking has oscillated between outrage, anger, despair and disgust during the course of the past few days as the government took urgency to pass two Bills which she was deeply affronted by: the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill.
Ms Brooking's dudgeon was in equal parts: she took extreme exception to both the content of the Bills, and the manner in which each was passed in all stages by the government, under urgency.
Before the House went into recess three weeks ago, no indication was given by the government that it intended to go into urgency, nor that it intended to rush through two such controversial pieces of legislation. Given the circumstances, the Opposition did rather well to keep argument on both law changes going for a couple of sitting days.
Depending on which side of the House you sat on, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill was either an exercise in providing a better framework for assessing whether there was ''a sex-based undervaluation in remuneration in female-dominated occupations'', or a horrible and unfair piece of legislation. We know Ms Brooking is in camp B given those are her words, not mine.
''We are going to take every opportunity to try and amend this terrible legislation that we think is a disgrace,'' she added for good measure.
Through Tuesday and Wednesday Ms Brooking took seven calls on the Bill (Taieri Labour MP Ingrid Leary and Dunedin Green list MP Francisco Hernandez were also often on their feet) teasing out the minutae of the Bill as only she can.
''Where the current legislation, back at 13F, has things that are included for consideration, and that happens at subsection (3) - it uses ''including'' - at subsections (1) and (2), it has to be everything; there are and's included,'' she said in part 2 of the committee stage, before going on to quite the discussion about the difference between ''view'' and ''views'' - any port in a filibuster storm.
The Opposition was not just posturing here: they had a legitimate point to make, Whether you agree with the law change or not, whether you believe it was a cynical attempt to balance the government's books by deferring a contingent liability or not, it was a terrible use of urgency to pass the Bill in a matter of hours.
Given the decades of struggle it has taken for the concept of pay equity to gain purchase, profound changes to the way the system of achieving it operates warranted full discussion from affected parties rather than this week's rush job. As a lawyer, Ms Brooking was understandably vexed by the entire process.
Having fought in vain for 48 hours, Ms Brooking was back for more almost immediately, as the Wildlife (Authorisations) Amendment Bill hoved into view.
The Opposition had slightly more of an inclination that this one was coming, it being well publicised that the government had not been best pleased at a recent High Court decision that it was unlawful for the Department of Conservation to authorise the killing of wildlife unless there was a direct link between killing and protecting wildlife.
Permissions had been given in the past for consented construction works, such as the Mt Messenger road in Taranaki, which occasioned this lawsuit. The government, fearful that its infrastructure building programme could be interfered with, has moved to reverse the court's findings.
Having sat in the family station wagon many a time as a child as it scaled Mt Messenger Southern Say has some sympathy with those who want the road built, but the wider point that Ms Brooking and others were making against the Bill - that its clawback on protections for wildlife could be far-reaching and fraught with unintended consequences - was a reasonable one.
This Bill is a stopgap before a much-needed overhaul of the antediluvian Wildlife Act, but given that tidy-up is likely many months away it may well be in force for some time, making it all the more important that a decent period of deliberation be taken to passing it.
By lunchtime Thursday Ms Brooking was fed up to the back teeth with it all and let rip in her third-reading speech.
''I have tried over and over again to try and engage with the minister about how it is that the words in his Bill make sense, how it is that they don't contradict each other ... this Bill is a hot mess. I mean, it just shows the craziness of using urgency for all stages, particularly when the policy problem has only arisen recently, so there's clearly not been much time to develop that.
''That is why we are opposing this Bill. It is a dreadful process. The government doesn't know what it's doing, and shame on them.''
That is as may be, but it is now the law.
mike.houlahan@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The group's chair, Gail Duncan, said: 'The Social Justice Group have sent in their submission to the Peoples Select Committee on Pay Equity. This Select Committee was the brainchild of Marilyn Waring and we were very grateful to have the opportunity to submit ' The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards. The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry. The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless. The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990). Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill. New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers. This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire. This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required. Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail. St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet. To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.' Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history. Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Taxpayers' Union Launches Campaign Against Dirty Deal Between Big Banks, ANZ, ASB, And The National Party
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union has today launched a major campaign targeting Scott Simpson's Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, which includes retrospective provisions that would extinguish a live class action brought by tens of thousands of bank customers against ANZ and ASB banks. The campaign has been launched with National Party's annual conference attendees being delivered love letters from the Big Banks to recognise their special relationship and bank bailout. In the coming days, a digital advertising, billboard, and grassroots mobilisation campaign demanding that Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Minister of Consumer Affairs Scott Simpson drop the retrospective clauses from the Bill will be launched. Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said: 'This is a disgraceful case of retrospective lawmaking that undermines the rule of law and destroys trust in New Zealand as a stable place to do business." "Last month the NZ Herald reported that the Bill is a result of backroom discussions between the Government and the Aussie-owned big banks which excluded the consumer-side parties of the very class action litigation the Bill is intended to extinguish." "Across the Tasman, the Aussie banks were hauled over the coals for misconduct and dishonest practises. But in Wellington, they are doing deals with the Beehive to be bailed out and 'protected' from consumer class actions. It's perverting the course of justice for tens of thousands." "Not only does the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill run roughshod over the rule of law, it is specifically designed to bail out the powerful at the expense of ordinary Kiwis.' 'Tens of thousands of Kiwis are part of a live class action over alleged unfair fees. Instead of letting the courts do their job, Nicola Willis and Scott Simpson are stepping in to shut it down with the stroke of a pen. That's not justice — that's Parliament playing defence for its mates.' The Union says the Bill makes a mockery of the Government's own rhetoric about restoring New Zealand's reputation as a safe, rules-based place to invest and do business. 'The same Ministers pushing the so-called Regulatory Standards Bill – which rightly warns against retrospective legislation – are now ramming through a bill that does exactly that. That's usually called hypocrisy.' 'When governments change the rules mid-litigation to protect the well connected, it sends a chilling message to investors, consumers, and taxpayers alike: the law in New Zealand is only as stable as the political connections of the people you're up against.' Williams concluded: 'This campaign isn't just focused at the Government. It's to hold to account and expose the disgraceful behaviour of ANZ and ASB banks to undermine their own customers' rights. This is about not just honesty and integrity and customer disclosures, but New Zealanders having the ability to enforce consumer protection law against the big end of town.' 'Either the Government walks the talk on stable, principled lawmaking, or they admit they're no better than the last lot. Kiwis deserve better than this grubby stitch-up.' The social media, digital and advertising campaign launches next week along with some more creative plans to ensure this bill gets the public scrutiny it deserves. 'Watch this space.'
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Leary dignified as sun sets on her Bill — and gains unlikely fan
Ingrid Leary. Photo: RNZ Taieri Labour MP Ingrid Leary is proud of her Dutch heritage. On Wednesday she must have had a feeling akin to that which the Netherlands rugby team might have if it were ever to line up against the All Blacks ... knowing that you have to run out on the field but that you are going to get absolutely pummelled. At which point, you either fold up or fight your darndest — and Leary opted for the latter. Back on July 16, during the most recent Members' Day, the House managed to sneak in the first couple of speeches on Leary's Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. This Bill, if passed (spoiler alert ... things did not go well for Leary) would have amended the Property Law Act so that house buyers would have to give their consent if vendors wanted to rescind their sale and purchase agreement under a sunset clause. Despite it being a well-intentioned and arguably sensible layer of added protection for people buying homes off the plans, it become all too apparent that all three governing parties were going to vote against it. But things were not all doom and gloom for Leary. As well as the sunset clauses Bill, Leary also has the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill in the Members' Bill ballot, which — if drawn and enacted — would require retirement villages to greatly accelerate the timeframe to repay residents or their families any money owed to them if the resident moved to higher care levels or died. This proposed law change is not a million miles away from what the government is eventually going to do in this space anyway ... and the reason why we know that the government is likely to enact a law like Leary's in the future is because last week someone leaked One News a recording of Tauranga National MP Sam Uffindell speaking at an unspecified time and place in a manner which seemed to endorse Leary's endeavours in this space. "Ingrid Leary ... has quite cunningly put forward a members' Bill which would address some of this. And she's savvy enough to have garnered up a lot of attention around retirement villages," Uffindell said. "And so that's in the pipeline as well. We need to arrest or take the key parts out of that [which] are workable and make sure we build that into something." Uffindell then revealed — over pizza and Pepsi Max — that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had raised issues concerning retirement villages with a group of backbench MPs, including himself. He further offered some electoral spice to the mix by adding: "Importantly, it needs to go through the House before the end of this term, because if it hasn't, we're going to have a whole bunch of disgruntled people and retirement villages who all vote and all talk to each other about it. Who will go, 'oh, National hasn't actually delivered and Labour was going to do this'." Oh dear. And just to add hot sauce to an already piquant piece of audio, One News asked Uffindell, and the PM, about his backbencher's reckons the other Thursday, while Luxon was on a visit to Tauranga. Back to this Wednesday, when a somewhat embarrassed government made little effort to defend itself for not backing Leary's sunset clauses Bill, National sending out first-term backbenchers Rima Nakhle and Hamish Campbell to take up 10 minutes of our lives that no-one is ever getting back in speaking on the Bill. Nakhle did at least say that she understood that Leary was trying to protect consumers from bad-faith developers, before taking a wide tangent to extol the natural beauties of her Takanini electorate; but who knows what Campbell was on about in a, frankly, incoherent offering which had very little to do with Leary's Bill — or anything else. Labour, knowing it was beat, opted to make the most of it and have some fun with the government's discomfiture on the subject of Leary's other Members' Bill. "This Bill introduced by Ingrid Leary, who I want to actually acknowledge — she's doing tremendous work in this area," Labour Housing spokesman Kieran McAnulty extolled. "She's doing tremendous work in the area of retirement villages. Sam Uffindell is a fan. Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work. "I think deep down, Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work in the area of sunset causes. I have a suspicion that there are a few of them over there that deep down would actually quite like to support this Bill, but they've been whipped. They've been whipped and told that they cannot support this Bill." When the fall is all that's left it matters a great deal how one falls, and in her concluding speech Leary's buried her Bill with dignity. "It's been a real privilege to be able to have this reading on my Bill, and I want to acknowledge my late mother for her Leary luck in getting my Bill drawn. It's continuing even after her departure, so thanks very much, Mum," she said. "I can feel the sun setting on my sunset clauses Bill ... it's such a shame that the government members won't support it in its first reading, because if they had, I think they would find, actually, there would be many property developers who would support this Bill because they do not want to be tarnished by the reputation of a few bad apples. That's certainly been the experience in Australia, where their equivalent Bill was overwhelmingly supported ... That's, I'm sure, what would have happened here, but, sadly, we won't get that chance." Leary then put in a plug for her other Bill, stressing that yet again she was trying to protect the little guy or gal against the big players. "I note that this legislation has worked very well in Australia. I am going to let the sun set on it now — it's the last gasp — but don't worry, we've got the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill and you still have a chance to support that, National Party members." Well, at least Leary knows that she has one likely backer.
