Labour defends raising c-word column in House
Labour has rejected the idea that it was a poor political judgment to reference a column using the c-word in connection to female ministers overhauling the pay equity scheme in Parliament.
The controversial legislation, passed under urgency last week, raises the threshold for proving work has been historically undervalued when making a pay equity claim. The law is retrospective, cancelling 33 current claims affecting 150,000 female workers which would have to be restarted.
Workplace Minister Brooke van Velden last week said the changes would save the Crown money. Opponents say it will make it harder for women in female dominated industries to make a claim.
Labour's Jan Tinetti asked van Velden a question about the column during Parliament's Question Time yesterday, to which van Velden dropped the c-word in protest over the slur being used.
Van Velden has defended the use of the word, blaming Labour for introducing the column in the first place.
"I think it's really important that I shone a light on the misogyny that Labour actually did bring into the House. They brought it here, I responded."
But Tinetti rejected that, saying there was nothing in the quote she referenced in her question that brought misogyny into the House.
"I deliberately went through that to find the quote that would mention the economic backhander."
It was pointed out to Tinetti that the column in question used the c-word, "that c-word I would never use," she said.
"That doesn't mean to say that people's emotions aren't riled by the fact there's been choices made here with the Budget, and future pay cuts have been made to women.
"This has got people very uptight and very angry, and emotions have risen."
She rejected the notion Labour had used poor political judgment by referencing the column, and said the party was having a discussion around misogyny, as well as women taking money off other women in "future pay cuts."
The coalition has criticised Labour for not calling out the column itself, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis taking aim at party leader Chris Hipkins directly for his past position of believing men should speak out against gendered abuse.
Hipkins said newspapers make editorial judgments about what they are and aren't willing to publish, "and that's a question for the editors and the people writing that material".
"Given the opportunity to make that exact statement, he did not; instead, he suddenly discovered free speech, and my view is that actually the standard you walk past is the standard you accept," Willis said.
NZ First MP Shane Jones said it had been the "most extraordinary day of language in the House" and discussion carried over into General Debate later in the afternoon.
Chris Bishop said the c-word had been "thrown around a bit" in the last week.
"I want to read out some c-words that I think apply to the Labour opposition: callous, cruel and cowardly."
He also said the "double standards" and "misleading statements" put out by the Labour Party over the last week were "cruel".
"Because this debate all started because of the actions the government took when it comes to equal pay, and we have heard all sorts of nonsense from the Opposition."
Hipkins took aim at Bishop too for "jumping on his high horse" and saying Labour needed to do better.
"I can only say I hope he didn't injure himself as he fell off his high horse when it was flying at breakneck speed in the wrong direction.
"Because at the same time he was saying we needed to do better, his own party was posting artificial intelligence-generated images of me when he was saying that we needed to 'raise the tone' of the debate."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kiwiblog
9 hours ago
- Kiwiblog
Guest Post: PM must reverse the ‘Power of General Competence' to stop activism in local government
A guest post by a reader: As powerless ratepayers face the ongoing tyranny of marxist councils over rates bills and the local government minister's repeated demands for sensible spending fall on deaf ears, the Prime Minister continues to ignore the obvious solution. Requests by Simon Watts imploring Tauranga and other councils to rein in the wasteful spending are ignored as renegade mayors like Mahe Drysdale go crazy (like kids in a sweet shop) giving away taxpayer owned land to Maori and other corrupt, wasteful spending. Reversing 'the power of general competence' legislated by socialist Helen in the early 2000s, would force attention back on delivery of essential services, rein in rates rises and improve the standard of living of long suffering rate payers. Unlike Trump who goes in like a bull-at-a-gate and changes things, our PM and ministers stand by wringing their hands timidly asking marxist councillors and staff to do the right thing. This is like so much virtue signalling on an issue Simeon Brown was threatening to address before he was promptly moved to the health ministry early this year…. curiouser and curiouser. Instead a deflecting Willis now turns our attention to a task akin to pushing back the tide: lowering supermarket prices; admirable, but probably impossible. Luxon showed that he is quite capable of some slick sleight of hand when it suits his purposes. (to get a budget over the line) Consider the pay parity bill. Now you see Labour's old version, then, faster than Dynamo, the new improved bill produced out of Brook van Veldon's hat, was passed into law under urgency. If the government genuinely wanted to help struggling New Zealanders they would have begun enacting the bill reversal in 2023. However it suits them to virtue signal and let councils carry out race based policies they profess to be against and can blame them for. They lie. The force working in government, so Luxon doesn't have to, is opportunist Tama Potaka, winning Hamilton West in the 2022 by-election, knowing Labour were heading for the wilderness. Luxon, forgetting his election promises and intent on taking his own path (like Ardern) once in power, has given full rein to Potaka, his Maori spokesperson, a new star. Speaking out on issues, referring to New Zealand as Aoteroa New Zealand in the House and else where without a murmur of dissent from so called tough commentators like Mike Hosking, who has coined the late Bob Jones' 'Maorification of NZ' as his own. When questioned Luxon defers from knowning or owning that nasty term. He mostly leaves that unpalatable stuff to his activist Maori spokesperson. Tut tutting on Twitter (X) when Seymour spoke of 'racist' media questions and of Maori targetted spending as 'racist'. (Seen as the ultimate taboo by the radical media ideologues.) Potaka is all business Tony Vaughn on Breaking Views opines: 'Tama Potaka is not a moderate. He is the acceptable face of racial separatism. A handsome cipher in a navy-blue suit, offering respectable cover for policies that are, in effect, apartheid with PR spin.' I couldn't have put it better. No doubt Potaka had a say in forcing the vote forward on Maori wards to this year's election so even those councils who voted against; their Maori wards have another term before they cease. Seymour folded like a wet umbrella on that one (not being the master of the behind -the-scenes tantrum like Winston) I know our city voted against Maori wards back in 2019 during the year, so come the election that year, there were none. Easy peasy. Luxon fires on all cylinders, speaking with authority, when he is one step removed from the decision. Consider the punishment doled out to to the Maori MPs for their 'Haka of Victimhood' (to quote Shane Jones) with 3 weeks ban and removal of pay. I wouldn't like his chances arguing the point against fiery Collins and Peters. However he can quite rightly say that the powerful privileges committee decision is final. And never waver. In the end they are carrying the can, not him and that is just the way he likes it. He lacks the courage of his convictions, necssary for real leadership. This decision will count in the government's favour, with a public sick of the Maori Party's antics. And it is a just decision considering the baptism of fire Seymour had gone through, from the shonky running of the Treaty Principles Bill's select committee; the ungracious behaviour of 'activists' Luxon and Potaka; with official records which will conceal corrupt counting methods and processes; culminating in a dramatic intimidating adult tantrum gaining global attention for all the wrong reasons. Also given the Maori Party leaders' sketchy attendance record in the House where they get paid whether there or not, losing three weeks pay might just about even it up! The Maori Party, unused to accountability, are finally finding their actions have consequences. Hard of hearing Speaker, Mr Brownlee who could have stopped the clown show before it got underway (by cutting the live feed for a start) will be most unpopular if he, in his quest to incorporate all things Maori into parliament, thinks rude imbecilic behaviour like this counts as 'Te Kanga' (behavioural guidelines for living with others) And here was I under the impression that mythical 'obligations to the treaty' were to be REMOVED not added, as part of the Coalition Agreement. If you are to get your point across you will have to brush up on your tantrum technique, David!
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Palestine Forum Of New Zealand Calls For Safe Passage Of Madleen And Urgent Sanctions Against Israel
The Palestine Forum of New Zealand strongly condemns the violent interception of the Madleen, a civilian aid vessel attempting to deliver essential humanitarian aid to the besieged people of Gaza, by the Israeli military. We demand the immediate safe passage of the vessel and call upon the New Zealand Government to urgently implement meaningful sanctions against Israel for its ongoing war crimes and illegal occupation of Palestine. 'The Madleen was carrying life-saving aid to a population enduring unimaginable suffering under Israel's illegal siege. Its interception is a flagrant violation of international law and a direct attack on humanitarian principles,' said a spokesperson for the Palestine Forum of New Zealand. The unlawful blockade of Gaza — now in its 18th year — has turned the region into what human rights organisations have described as the world's largest open-air prison. The systematic denial of aid, food, water, fuel, and medical supplies is part of Israel's ongoing campaign of collective punishment against the Palestinian people. Palestine Forum of New Zealand reiterates the following urgent demands: Immediate safe passage for the Madleen and all humanitarian vessels to Gaza. The New Zealand Government is to impose targeted sanctions against Israel, including an end to military, economic, and diplomatic cooperation. Support for the Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill and pressure on Parliament to prioritise it for debate. Active support for international legal mechanisms, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes and crimes against humanity. 'Aotearoa cannot remain silent while innocent people are bombed, starved, and denied medical care. New Zealand has a proud history of standing on the side of justice — from opposing apartheid in South Africa to advocating for nuclear-free policies. It's time our government showed the same moral courage for Palestine,' the spokesperson added. The Palestine Forum of New Zealand stands in unwavering solidarity with the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, the Madleen crew, and the people of Gaza. It will continue to amplify the call for justice, dignity, and the right of return for all Palestinians.
Scoop
14 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.
