Pushing NZ Super age to 67 a ‘no brainer'
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says National will look to increase NZ Super qualification age to 67 and will go to the next election on that platform.
'I can look at Canada, the UK and Australia which are either there or heading there. Every 10 years, the life expectancy of New Zealander's
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Te Pāti Māori stand down confirmed
Parliament has confirmed the unprecedented punishments proposed for Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka in protest against the Treaty Principles Bill. Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi will be suspended for 21 days, and MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke suspended for seven days, taking effect immediately. Opposition parties tried to reject the recommendation, but did not have the numbers to vote it down. The heated debate to consider the proposed punishment came to an end just before Parliament was due to rise. Waititi moved to close the debate and no party disagreed, ending the possibility of it carrying on in the next sitting week. Leader of the House Chris Bishop - the only National MP who spoke - kicked off the debate earlier in the afternoon saying it was "regrettable" some MPs did not vote on the Budget two weeks ago. Bishop had called a vote ahead of Budget Day to suspend the privileges report debate to ensure the Te Pāti Māori MPs could take part in the Budget, but not all of them turned up. The debate was robust and rowdy with both the deputy speaker Barbara Kuriger and temporary speaker Tangi Utikare repeatedly having to ask MPs to quieten down. Tākuta Ferris spoke first for Te Pāti Māori saying the haka was a "signal of humanity" and a "raw human connection". He said Māori had faced acts of violence for too long and would not be silenced by "ignorance or bigotry". "Is this really us in 2025, Aotearoa New Zealand?" he asked the House. "Everyone can see the racism." He said the Privileges Committee's recommendations were not without precedent, noting the fact Labour MP Peeni Henare, who also participated in the haka, didn't face suspension. Henare attended the committee and apologised, which contributed to his lesser sanction. MP Parmjeet Parmar - a member of the Committee - was first to speak on behalf of ACT, and referenced the hand gesture - or "finger gun" - that Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer made in the direction of ACT MPs during the haka. Parmar told the House debate could be used to disagree on ideas and issues, and there wasn't a place for intimidating physical gestures. Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said New Zealand's Parliament could lead the world in terms of involving the indigenous people. She said the Green Party strongly rejected the committee's recommendations and proposed their amendment of removing suspensions, and asked the Te Pāti Māori MPs be censured instead. Davidson said The House had evolved in the past - such as the inclusion of sign language and breast-feeding in The House. She said the Greens were challenging the rules, and did not need an apology from Te Pāti Māori. NZ First leader Winston Peters said Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party speeches so far showed "no sincerity, saying countless haka had taken place in Parliament but only after first consulting the Speaker. "They told the media they were going to do it, but they didn't tell the Speaker did they? "The Māori party are a bunch of extremists," Peters said, "New Zealand has had enough of them". Peters was made to apologise after taking aim at Waititi, calling him "the one in the cowboy hat" with "scribbles on his face". He continued afterward, describing Waititi as possessing "anti western values". Labour's Willie Jackson congratulated Te Pāti Māori for the "greatest exhibition of our culture in The House in my lifetime". Jackson said the Treaty bill was a great threat, and was met by a great haka performance. He was glad the ACT Party was intimidated, saying that was the whole point of doing the haka. He also called for a bit of compromise from Te Pāti Māori - encouraging them to say sorry - but reiterated Labour's view the sanctions were out of proportion with past indiscretions in the House. Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the debate "would be a joke if it wasn't so serious". "Get an absolute grip", she said to the House, arguing the prime minister "is personally responsible" if The House proceeds with the committee's proposed sanctions. She accused National's James Meager of "pointing a finger gun" at her - the same gesture coalition MPs had criticised Ngarewa-Packer for during her haka - the Speaker accepted he had not intended to, Swarbrick said it was an example where the interpretation can be in the eye of the beholder. She said if the government could "pick a punishment out of thin air" that was "not a democracy", putting New Zealand in very dangerous territory. An emotional Maipi-Clarke said she had been silent on the issue for a long time, the party's voices in haka having sent shockwaves around the world. She questioned whether that was why the MPs were being punished. "Since when did being proud of your culture make you racist?" "We will never be silenced, and we will never be lost," she said, calling the Treaty Principles bill was a "dishonourable vote". She had apologised to the Speaker and accepted the consequence laid down on the day, but refused to apologise. She listed other incidents in Parliament that resulted in no punishment. Maipi-Clarke called for the Treaty of Waitangi to be recognised in the Constitution Act, and for MPs to be required to honour it by law. "The pathway forward has never been so clear," she said. ACT's Nicole McKee said there were excuses being made for "bad behaviour", that The House was for making laws and having discussions, and "this is not about the haka, this is about process". She told The House she had heard no good ideas from the Te Pāti Māori, who she said resorted to intimidation when they did not get their way, but the MPs needed to "grow up" and learn to debate issues. She hoped 21 days would give them plenty of time to think about their behaviour. Labour MP and former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe started by saying there are "no winners in this debate", and it was clear to him it was the government, not the Parliament, handing out the punishments. He said the proposed sanctions set a precedent for future penalties, and governments may use it as a way to punish opposition, imploring National to think twice. He also said an apology from Te Pāti Māori would "go a long way", saying they had a "huge opportunity" to have a legacy in The House, but it was their choice - and while many would agree with the party there were rules and "you can't have it both ways". Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said there had been many instances of misinterpretations of the haka in The House and said it was unclear why they were being punished, "is it about the haka... is about the gun gestures?" "Not one committee member has explained to us where 21 days came from," he said. Waititi took aim at Peters over his comments targeting his hat and "scribbles" on his face. He said the haka was an elevation of indigenous voice and the proposed punishment was a "warning shot from the colonial state that cannot stomach" defiance. Waititi said that throughout history when Māori did not play ball, the "coloniser government" reached for extreme sanctions, ending with a plea to voters: "make this a one-term government, enrol, vote". He brought out a noose to represent Māori wrongfully put to death in the past, saying "interpretation is a feeling, it is not a fact ... you've traded a noose for legislation".
RNZ News
13 hours ago
- RNZ News
Resignation of Prime Minister's press secretary highlights gaps in NZ law on covert recording and harassment
By Cassandra Mudgway of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon takes questions at the Beehive after the resignation of press secretary Michael Forbes. Photo: Analysis: The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his "shock" at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was "open to revisiting" the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of "intimate visual recording" under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 - if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of "intimate visual recording". That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Under the Harassment Act 1997, "harassment" is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as "image-based sexual abuse". The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain - largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or "upskirting", for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as "living documents", able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies. Cassandra Mudgway is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Canterbury. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
The Spinoff
13 hours ago
- The Spinoff
How were the alleged actions of the PM's press secretary not illegal?
The case of a senior Beehive staffer who resigned over allegations that police said didn't meet the threshold for prosecution highlights the limits of existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. The sudden resignation this week of one of prime minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed bodies parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
