Brooke van Velden meets with Council of Trade Unions after pay equity changes
Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
The Council of Trade Unions is meeting with Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden on Thursday morning, hot on the heels of pay equity changes passing under urgency last week.
The half-hour meeting from 10.15am is the minister's first with the union in about a year, despite her predecessors typically
booking monthly catch-ups
.
It also coincides with an event hosted by Labour and the Greens to bring union members to Parliament to hear from them about the effects of the pay equity changes.
CTU national secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges told RNZ the minister's approach to the relationship was unprecedented, but they hoped to get straight into the substantive issues.
"This is really an opportunity to, I suppose, begin some of those conversations that we haven't been able to have with her to date. Obviously top of the agenda is going to be pay equity and we're going to be conveying to Brooke how we think the changes that they have made are absolutely heading in the wrong direction.
"We'll be wanting to get into the substantive issues, we have a lot of questions for Brooke about the changes she has made firstly to pay equity but also there's a range of other issues we haven't been able to engage with her about as well."
Those other matters included calls for a ban on engineered stone, the government's policy of banning partial strikes, and other health and safety policies.
She said they would be asking for the 33 in-progress claims that were scrapped last week to be restored, and the changes to the Act to be reversed. Whether that would be possible was up to the government, she said.
"What they have done is absolutely atrocious and really needs to be reversed as soon as possible ... the changes that they have made to the Act undoubtedly make it harder to settle claims, and to settle claims that actually reflect the work that women do in those female-dominated industries.
"We are going to be making sure that workers' voices are heard in that meeting, and that Brooke van Velden understands the depth of feeling about the changes."
Asked about the lack of meetings, she said van Velden had shown she was not interested in what working people had to say about the changes she wanted to make.
Whether the minister would be receptive was unclear.
"I guess we'll see."
Ansell-Bridges helped facilitate the earlier event for opposition MPs and media to hear from union members about the equity changes, which were passed within a couple of days of being announced.
Labour and Green MPs had planned the event - held in Labour's larger caucus room - last week, inviting a handful of women and their families.
Decrying a newspaper opinion article in Parliament which criticised female MPs for backing the legislation, van Velden quoted from it - using the c-word in Parliament for the first time.
Labour's spokesperson for Women Jan Tinetti addressed that at the start of the meeting on Thursday, saying there had been some "deliberate distractions" from the government over the reaction to its move.
She said she was frustrated and angry about the legislative changes and would continue to fight them.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Tory Whanau 'glad' to see new mayoral candidate Alex Baker enter race
Wellington's current mayor Tory Whanau. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Wellington's current mayor Tory Whanau says she's "glad" to see another mayoral candidate in the race, saying many in the community have been disappointed by some of Andrew Little's public comments. "We have a new progressive mayoral candidate in the race," Whanau posted on social media on Monday morning. "I'm glad to see more people putting themselves forward - it's healthy for democracy and shows that people care about the future of our city." That progressive candidate is former director of sustainability at Kāinga Ora and Chartered Accountant from KPMG Alex Baker. He said what had driven him to join the race was that he didn't feel like his values were represented by the other candidates. Green-backed Whanau had announced she was no longer seeking re-election after Labour-backed Little entered the race, saying she did not want a Green vs Labour battle. "While I cleared the way for Andrew Little, I've been hearing from many in the community who are disappointed by some of his public comments, particularly regarding the Golden Mile. I believe that may be why we've now seen a progressive candidate enter the race," she said in Monday's post. Mayoral candidate Alex Baker. Photo: Supplied Andrew Little said he supported the Golden Mile in principle. "Where I differ is that before pressing go I would want to be confident the businesses in our CBD can survive the disruption and I'd want to run the ruler over the contracts to limit the risk of cost blowouts and delays," he said. "The council needs to rebuild trust. That means doing a better job of listening to the communities affected by decisions and keeping a firmer grip on the costs of major projects so we don't see any more blowouts like the Town Hall," he said. In the post Whanau also said it was also notable that only men had put their names forward for the role so far. "I've spoken openly about how the role has become increasingly untenable, and I know many women have been discouraged by what they've seen me experience firsthand." Others vying for mayor include Former Labour MP Andrew Little, current city councillor Ray Chung along with Karl Tiefenbacher, Kelvin Hastie, Rob Goulden and Graham Bloxham. Nominations are open until 1 August. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Federated Farmers campaign against pine tree planting initiative
Federated Farmers have put up a billboard in Wellington claiming "sheep are not the problem". Photo: Supplied Sheep farmers have stepped up their campaign against the government's reliance on planting pine trees to offset emissions. Under the existing Emissions Trading Scheme, planting pine trees for carbon credits is causing land to be repurposed, as it is generally more profitable to plant pine trees than to farm sheep. Parliament's own environment watchdog has questioned successive governments' reliance on planting trees to meet climate targets. Now, Federated Farmers have put up a billboard in Wellington, claiming "sheep are not the problem". Meat and Wool chair Toby Williams said farming families were being pushed off the land and it was destroying rural communities. He said between 2017 and 2024, more than 260,000 hectares of productive sheep farming land were lost to pine trees. The national sheep flock had reduced from more than 70 million sheep in 1982, to fewer than 25 million sheep today. Federated Farmers wants the government to review the ETS. The government made a series of changes to the legislation in December last year, with the goal of limiting the amount of full farm to forestry conversions. Williams told Midday Report farmers were "really grateful" for those changes, but class 7 land - considered "non-arable" - still had no limit on how much of it could be registered within the ETS. "Quite often what we find is people don't regard that land to be very profitable, or driving a good return, but it's where our ewes live, and our cows live. It's producing the lambs and the calves that we then process into meat," Williams said. New Zealand is the only country in the world that allows 100 percent carbon offsetting through forestry, with other countries putting restrictions in place. Climate change minister Simon Watts has been approached for comment. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
On Free Speech And Anti-Semitism
For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. According to Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden, employers are having to endure a 'culture of fear' created by Worksafe, which has the power to prosecute them if if they are operating unsafe workplaces. There seems to be only anecdotal evidence – from employers at a government roadshow – that Worksafe has ever used its powers indiscriminately, or that good employers need to worry about a visit by the labour inspectorate. Regardless, and despite New Zealand's terrible track record of workplace-related deaths, injuries and illnesses – demonstrably worse than in the UK or Australia – it is going to be made harder in future to find anyone criminally liable. As we did before in the early 1990s, an already underfunded enforcement regime is going to be turned back towards one of voluntary compliance by employers, who will be advised on how to put into practice the codes of conduct that they have been invited to write. Worksafe is being told to prioritise this 'advice' and 'guidance' role. Van Velden also indicated to Jack Tame on Q&A on the weekend, that she's looking at clarifying (i.e. reducing) the responsibilities of company directors and managers, with respect to their liability for the workplace conditions in the companies that they steward. Van Velden cited the White Island prosecutions as an example of the net of prosecutions being cast too widely. So if employers, directors and managers are to be held less liable in future, just who is being made more liable? Workers. To RNZ, Van Velden has said the re-balancing at Worksafe would include 'strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty.' Talk about blaming the victim. Finally, and as Tame pointed out to Van Velden, this new soft-line approach to employers is not at all like the way that the government treats beneficiaries. There's an obvious double standard. Allegedly, employers require guidance, lest they live in fear of being sanctioned for their sub-standard workplace conditions and/or dangerous work practices. Yet the poor are treated as if they require sanctions, as if living in fear of losing their meagre income will improve their behaviour. Employers are to receive the carrot of guidance, the poor are getting the stick of sanctions. So it goes, under this most Dickensian of governments. Natives, being restless Looking back… how terrifying it must have been for the members of the ACT Party to be challenged by a real live haka performed by real live brown people within the safe and familiar confines of the debating chamber. Gosh. To think that MPs still have to endure such goings on, despite all that the coalition government has done so far to rid the political process of anything that smacks of biculturalism. Funny though… those uniquely harsh sentences on the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, were applauded by the same ACT Party that – only a few months ago – took steps to compel universities t o allow the peddlers of misinformation to have access to the nation's campuses. In 2019, ACT Party leader David Seymour even called for the funding to be cut to tertiary institutions that did not take an all-comers approach to speakers on campus. 'It is not the role of universities to protect students from ideas they find offensive….' Mr Seymour said. On one hand, ACT Party MPs are to be protected from being exposed to interruptions and/or challenges. But trans people, or other vulnerable student minorities on campus? ACT's message to them is tough shit, and suck it up – because the cause of free speech trumps all other concerns, as long as it is not being directed at them. Odd indeed that a libertarian party committed to free speech should be deploying the forces of the state to compel universities to throw open their doors to anyone, without apparent heed to the consequences. One has to wonder whether this licence will be extended to Holocaust deniers, and to advocates of the Great Replacement Theory promulgated by the Christchurch mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant. This is happening in the absence of evidence that there is a problem on campus that requires this level of heavy handed, pre-emptive intervention by the state. Saying sorry For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. Mr Speaker could have said – 'I take that to be three votes against,' and moved on. At that point, the vote's outcome was not in question. In context then, the performance of the haka was an expression of resistance meant to signal that Māori would continue to resist this legislative attempt to unilaterally change the nature of the Crown's partnership with Māori. To that end, the haka protest was a case of Māori representatives, protesting in Māori against an injustice being done to Māori, and it was occurring within the same precinct where the injustice was unfolding. IMO, you could hardly find a more appropriate time and place for that expression of free speech, delivered in one of the three languages formally recognised byParliament. Not only has the punishment been bizarrely disproportionate to the offence, but so have the calls for Te Pāti Māori to have made a plea deal in mitigation, by apologising for their defiance. Really? In the light of the time, effort and taxpayer money wasted by the ACT Party in bringing their pre-destined-to-fail Bill into Parliament, there should have been calls made – simultaneously – for the ACT Party to apologise. Seriously. We might then have had genuine grounds for a compromise. The Action Against Universities ACT's recent move to restrict the discretion of universities is disturbing on several grounds. But here's a contemporary concern. In the US, the Trump administration's recent attacks on major universities like Harvard – and their international students – has been aimed at punishing campus demonstrations against US/Israeli policy on Gaza, and at deterring university councils from divesting their sizeable investments in Israel. As yet, protests against Gaza have not been not as prominent on campuses here. Here's how the Gaza issue could easily come to the fore. New Zealand joined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as an observer on June 24, 2022. The IHRA is an inter-governmental body based in Stockholm that is solely devoted to anti-Holocaust activities. It has at least 31 full member countries (including Australia) and also 8 'observer' countries, including New Zealand. As of June 24, New Zealand will reportedly be obliged to pay 30,000 euros to the IHRA to maintain its observer status. Alternatively, New Zealand could always apply for full IHRA membership, under the tutelage of an existing full member, presumably, Australia. If that happened, it would be interesting for New Zealanders to be given lessons by Australians on how to promote better race relations. To attain even our current 'observer' status, New Zealand would have previously had to (among other things) submitted an application letter signed by either our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Minister of Education. New Zealand would have also agreed to abide by these conditions. For example: we will have had to complete a survey on the state of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research in the country, which will have been submitted to the IHRA Permanent Office at least eight weeks before the Plenary meeting at which the interested government seeks admission as an Observer. Evidently – since New Zealand does now have observer status within the IHRA – we did all of the above. Much as some NZ politicians profess to oppose the use of the education curriculum for social engineering purposes, there would be few New Zealanders who would oppose a commitment to ensuring that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again. But here's the not un-related problem. In December 2023, the US Congress passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that placed a very broad definition of anti-Semitism, promoted by the IHRA at the centre of federal civil rights law. At the time, some voices in US higher education circles expressed concern worried that this definition could have a chilling effect on free speech on key element in all of this was the controversial 'working definition' of anti-Semitism that has been promoted since 2016 by the IHRA. The IHRA website containing this definition is here. This definition of anti-Semitism has come under fire, from Jews and non-Jews alike. In Australia, the IHRA definition has been criticised by numerous academics and human rights lawyers as an infringement on academic freedom, free speech and the right to political protest. The IHRA has also faced a global backlash from Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of anti-Semitism, which includes 'targeting the state of Israel', could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle the freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK. In 2023, Nick Reimer the president of the Sydney branch of the Tertiary Education Union described the adoption of the IHRA definition as an 'outright attack on academic freedom'.'[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they're meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,' he said. 'A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities..' Kenneth Stern, who self-identifies as a Zionist (and who was the lead drafter of the IHRA definition) has since spoken out in the New Yorker magazine against the misuse of the IHRA definition by right wing Jewish extremists. Among Stern's concerns is that the IHRA definition could be weaponised to stifle legitimate protest. So here's the thing. IF ACT feels driven to protect free speech on campus, would it oppose – or would it support – the adoption by university councils of the definition of anti-Semitism being promoted by the IHRA? In 2018, the Auckland University Students Association formally adopted the IHRA definition, but it is unclear whether student unions at any other NZ university have followed suit, let alone any NZ university administrations. Would ACT – as a a self-declared champion of free speech on controversial issues – support or oppose them doing so, given how the definition has allegedly been weaponised to restrict free speech? The Other Option Thankfully, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only option on the table. A competing definition of anti-Semitism emerged in 2021, largely in order to remedy the concerns held about the sweeping ambit of the IHRA definition. The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism is available here. It makes significant distinctions that are lacking in the IHRA document. Some of its guidelines are striking in nature. In context, it condones the controversial 'from the river to the sea' slogan and the boycott and divestment programme as being legitimate expressions of political protest. As Guideline 12 says: 12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form. And here's Guideline 14 : 14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. In its preamble, the Jerusalem Declaration also makes a useful distinction between criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, and anti-Semitism. It states 'Hostility to Israel could be an expression of anti-Semitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or … the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.' Exactly. Criticism of the Israeli state is not necessarily (or primarily) motived by sentiments of anti-Semitism. Reportedly, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism has been signed by three hundred and fifty scholars, including the historian Omar Bartov and Susannah Heschel, the chair of the Jewish Studies programme at the prestigious Dartmouth College in the US. So, and again… since ACT Party seems intent on having the state dictate to university councils how they should handle issues of free speech on campus, perhaps ACT can enlighten us on how it thinks universities should be treating allegations and defining the parameters of anti-Semitism. For starters: which definition of anti-Semitism does the ACT Party believe is more conducive to free and open debate on campus (and why) – the IHRA one, or the Jerusalem Declaration On Anti-Semitism? Big Thief Returns Adrianne Lenker's lyrics can seem as natural as breathing, at least until you notice how tightly structured her rhymes are, how surprising her analogies can be, and how the song narrative never wanders from the path of her intent. The new Big Thief track 'Incomprehensible' starts out as road trip with her lover along the Canadian side of Lake Superior – Thunder Bay and Old Woman Bay get nam-checked – before in verse two, the song becomes a meditation on growing old, and on how society teaches women to react with dread to the signs of ageing. Instead, Linker celebrates the silver hairs now falling on her shoulders, and what she sees in the faces and bodies of her older female relatives. Most songwriters would have left it that. But Lenker turns further inwards. As the lyric says, she wrote this song on the eve of her 33rd birthday, and she seems to have to terms with how unknowable – incomprehensible – we are to ourselves, and to each other. If you know Lenker's back catalogue, the 'Incomprehensible'song (BTW, it is the opening track of the upcoming Big Thief album Double Infinity) is the polar opposite of her earlier solo track, 'Zombie Girl.' In that song about a dis-integrating relationship, she's failing to bridge the distance between herself, and the zombie girl lying beside her.
