Govt Finally Admits 180,000 In Line For A Pay Cut
The Government finally admitted late last night that roughly 180,000 people will be affected by its decision to halt pay equity claims.
'Last week the Government killed 33 pay equity claims, pushing the law change through under urgency, with the clear intention of paying for their budget off the backs of hardworking women,' Labour workplace relations and safety spokesperson Jan Tinetti said.
'Now the Minister has finally admitted just how many people they've screwed over: roughly 180,000 people, mostly women, had their claims tossed out, just in time for Mother's Day.
'This is money that was set aside to lift women's pay, but this Government has chosen to take this money because their Budget didn't add up. That is a pay cut, plain and simple.
'These are nurses, teachers, care and support workers who have been fighting for years for pay equity. These are the workforces made up of mostly women, who hold this country together. This is National telling them they are not valued.
'Across the country thousands of women are making their voices heard and Labour proudly stands with them. We will restore women's fundamental rights to equal pay for equal work,' Jan Tinetti said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
40 minutes ago
- Scoop
Speech: Hon Andrew Hoggard To Federated Farmers At Fieldays
ACT MP Hon Andrew Hoggard Federated Farmers Rural Advocacy Hub Speaking Engagement Wednesday 11 June, 11:30 am Good morning, everyone. It's great to be back, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. I'd like to start by acknowledging the significant effort that's gone into organising this year's Fieldays Rural Advocacy Hub. These events don't happen without a lot of hard work behind the scenes, and it shows. I also want to acknowledge Federated Farmers and the many other farmer-led organisations who work tirelessly to support and advocate for the sector. As a dairy farmer and a former President of Federated Farmers, I know firsthand how important your work is. Whether it's in the regions or on the national stage, you give voice to rural communities, bring practical solutions to the table, and stand up for the interests of farmers and growers across New Zealand. This Government is firmly committed to backing you—by reducing costs, cutting unnecessary red tape, and strengthening frontline support. When I spoke at Fieldays last year, interest rates were a massive challenge for rural New Zealand. Make no mistake, that was Wellington's fault. It was the hangover from a Labour-led pandemic response that pumped out easy money without a productivity boost to match. Now we've reined in waste, got inflation back to the target range, and farmers are finally seeing real interest rates relief. We need to do more to cut the waste in Wellington, because the less resource the Government sucks up, the more is left over for people like you out in the real world trying to grow things. Over the past year, we've made real progress on red tape. We've started delivering on our promise to fix the resource management system and reduce the regulatory burden. Amending intensive winter grazing and stock exclusion rules. Pausing the rollout of freshwater farm plans while we make them more practical and affordable, and halting the identification of new Significant Natural Areas. Right now, we're consulting on a package of proposals aimed at streamlining or removing regulations that are holding the primary sector back. Most critically, we are consulting on changes to the NPS Freshwater 2020. There are several options being put forward. Now, if I remove my Minister hat and put on my ACT Party hat, we need to be bold. By that I mean Te Mana o te Wai needs to go. Worrying about the Paris Accord, whilst still a concern, is a sideshow compared to the hard calls we need to make with regards to RMA reform and the NPS Freshwater. Make no mistake, as a Party we have no interest in taxing the most carbon efficient farmers in the world, having methane targets far in excess of what is needed to play our part, sending billions offshore to be carbon neutral, or turning the lights off in homes or businesses through misguided energy policies. But if you ask me what area of policy scares me the most for the future of New Zealand farming, it is resource management and freshwater policy. Te Mana o te Wai has caused confusion amongst councils, and I see that if left in place its current trajectory will likely lead towards co-governance for regional councils, not just in policy but consenting as well, and policies that are based on vague spiritual concepts, not clear and simple water science balanced with societal needs. This debate will undoubtedly be noisy, but farming groups need to advocate strongly for clear unambiguous language in the NPS, individual farmers need to submit on what they are seeing and the stress this concept has caused many of them with regards to consenting. At the Treaty Principles Bill second reading debate many coalition party MPs stated that the Bill was too general, too broad-brushed, and that we should just focus on ensuring that we don't have unclear language and vague concepts in future bills and policies. Well I would suggest that this NPS Freshwater is a good test for those statements. You will see plenty of MPs here for the next few days playing farmer dress up, make sure you let them know you expect them to keep their word. Now, while I'm being a staunch ACT MP I also want to give a shout out to the Regulatory Standards Bill, for many of you undoubtedly are thinking, why should I care about something that sounds that boring. Real simple. If this Bill had been in place during my Feds presidency it would have made the job so much easier, as it would have highlighted some of the more impractical and stupid regulations that were dreamed up. Even if it didn't make the politicians think twice, at least the system would have shone a spotlight on the issues. We are so lucky that Bernadette Hunt got on the Hosking show and was able to show up some of the more daft parts of the winter grazing regs and they got changed within days, but they shouldn't have got that far. That's what the Regulatory Standards Bill will hopefully show up. But also, government doesn't just take away your hard-earned dollars through its fiscal policies. It also can take away your property rights through its regulatory policies, so this Bill will ensure that if those property rights are taken away then compensation should be forthcoming. This whole concept has complete distaste from the Left, and some lukewarm reception from everyone else but ACT. So, if more protection for property rights is something you want to see, make sure you put your case forward for it. Okay, back to being a Minister, if I can just highlight some of the other Government work that is going on that is relevant for farming. In the health and safety space, we've got Brooke van Velden leading reforms to get rid of over compliance, reduce paperwork, and make WorkSafe helpful, not harmful. I'm especially pleased about her work to protect landowners from liability when they allow recreational activities like horse trekking, hunting, or hiking on their land. It's about a shift from fear to freedom, opening up land for maximum enjoyment and enhancing the Kiwi way of life. We're also keen to empower farmers on the conservation front. I believe farmers are natural environmentalists. We live off the land, so we have every incentive to care for it. Many of us work to maintain stands of native bush or wetland on our land. For too long, the approach has been to punish this work, with councils looking at your land and saying, ' that looks pretty, in fact that natural area looks 'significant' and you're going to lose your property rights over that. ' It's all stick and no carrot. I think farmers deserve real credit for their contributions to biodiversity, and I'll have more to say about that at the Beef + Lamb stall tomorrow. In this year's Budget, we announced a 20% funding increase to tackle the spread of wilding pines—a major win for our landscapes and productive land. Another important change in this year's Budget is Investment Boost—a major new tax incentive to encourage business investment, support economic growth, and lift wages. If you're a farmer, tradie, manufacturer, or run any business, this matters to you. When you invest in new equipment, machinery, tools, vehicles, or technology—you'll now be able to deduct 20% of that cost immediately from your taxable income. It's a straightforward way to help reduce your tax bill and support decisions that lift productivity and grow your business. To put it simply, we're backing your success. We want to see a thriving primary sector that's not weighed down by complexity, but supported to innovate, grow, and lead. I want to thank Federated Farmers, and many of you here, for the constructive role you've played in helping shape these changes. Your feedback is vital to making sure the final rules are workable, sensible, and fit for purpose. Thank you again for the chance to be here, and for everything you do to keep this sector moving forward. All the best for a successful and enjoyable Fieldays. Thank you.
The Spinoff
an hour ago
- The Spinoff
With so many parties ‘ruling out' working with other parties, is MMP losing its way?
Part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of the worst excesses of the political executive. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. There has been a lot of 'ruling out' going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, Act's David Seymour and NZ First's Winston Peters, ruled out ever working with the Labour Party. Seymour has also advised Labour to rule out working with Te Pāti Māori. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has engaged in some ruling out of his own, indicating he won't work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National's Christopher Luxon ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori. And while the Greens haven't yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they could only work with National if it was prepared to 'completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's wellbeing'. Much more of this and at next year's general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago. Under the old 'first past the post' system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice. Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary. Government by decree By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party that might be able to govern with either major player. In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an ' elected dictatorship ', part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s. Most notably, the coalition has made greater use of parliamentary urgency than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to avoid parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies such as the Pay Equity Amendment Bill. Second, in an ironic vindication of the anti-MMP campaign 's fears before the electoral system was changed – that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy – the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that. It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one. But some of the administration's most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from Act (the Treaty principles bill and the Regulatory Standards legislation) and NZ First (tax breaks for heated tobacco products). Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the controversial changes Act and NZ First have managed to secure will erode – at least in some quarters – faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements. The centre cannot hold Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/Act/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left. In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate 'commonsense' party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now. In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is roughly half that of the major player. The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and Act may be small, but they are not minor. In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the latest polls show), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase. For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric, winner-takes-all politics of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar. The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand – lacking the constitutional guardrails common in other democracies – needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments.
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Saying Yes To More Housing
Minister for RMA Reform Hon Simeon Brown Minister for Auckland City-shaping changes are coming to New Zealand's largest city, ensuring that Auckland can fully harness the economic growth benefits of the new City Rail Link, RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop and Auckland Minister Simeon Brown say. The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill (the Bill) has been reported back to Parliament today by the Environment Committee, containing significant changes to enable housing growth in our largest cities. 'After many months, Auckland Council and the Government have reached agreement to free up more land for housing, particularly around City Rail Link (CRL) stations. These are some of the most significant changes to the shape of Auckland since the Auckland Unitary Plan,' Mr Bishop says. 'It doesn't make sense that we have single story houses on quarter acre sections a stone's throw away from stations that, in a year or so, will see trains every few minutes. 'The Government and the Council are investing billions in CRL and have a shared vision for stations that become hubs for public transport, mixed use development and new housing. 'Successive Governments and Councils have failed to grasp this opportunity for economic growth in New Zealand's largest city. This is how modern, growing cities all around the world operate, and now it's Auckland's turn.' Advertisement - scroll to continue reading 'Today's announcements are a result of Auckland Council and the Government working together to deliver a plan for more housing that works for Auckland. The Bill now has the effect of abolishing the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) in Auckland while requiring more housing density around key public transport corridors - a common sense solution for Auckland,' Auckland Minister Simeon Brown says. 'Auckland must grow to fully meet its potential as a world-leading city. The one sized-fits-all approach of the MDRS was not appropriate for Auckland. Today's announcement will ensure our city grows where it makes the most sense and maximise on the significant investment made in the City Rail Link.' 'I want to thank Auckland Council, particularly Mayor Brown and Councillor Richard Hills, for their pragmatic approach to solving these complex challenges over many months,' Mr Bishop says. 'Mayor Brown has previously described this situation as 'RMA gymnastics' and he is right, but I am confident that these arrangements align with our shared vison of density and development in places that work for Aucklanders.' Removing ability to opt-out of the MDRS 'The Bill as introduced provided councils with the flexibility to opt out of the MDRS, if they could show they had provided for 30 years of housing growth in their district and unitary plans,' Mr Bishop says. 'Councils have been going through plan changes for years in order to incorporate the MDRS. Most councils have already substantially completed their plan changes through this process, with just three (Auckland, Christchurch and Waimakariri) yet to finish. 'The practical reality is that if councils did vote to 'opt out' of the MDRS, they would have to pass a new plan change to do so, and due to the length of time this typically takes under the RMA, by the time this was complete, the Government's new planning system is expected to be in place. 'Fundamentally, it would have achieved nothing, but cost ratepayers a lot. 'The Government has therefore taken the pragmatic view that it would be sensible to remove the ability for councils to opt out of the MDRS and to work on bespoke legislative solutions for Auckland and Christchurch instead.' New plan change for Auckland 'Auckland's intensification plan change, PC78, has been underway since 2022. Progress has been slow for many reasons, including the Auckland floods. The intensification plan change process does not allow Auckland to 'downzone' certain areas due to natural hazard risk – only to 'upzone' them – and the Council wrote to the government asking them to fix this problem,' Mr Bishop says. 'The Government has therefore agreed to change the Bill to allow Auckland to withdraw PC78. However, the government is determined to unlock housing capacity in Auckland and fix our housing crisis and has taken steps to ensure this is achieved. 'Earlier in the year I directed Auckland Council to bring forward decisions on the parts of PC78 that relate to the city centre, requiring final decisions to be made by the end of May. Auckland Council met this requirement, finalising this part of PC78 on 22 May 2025. 'These decisions made by the council are a step forward in increasing development capacity in Auckland's CBD, but there is more work to be done. 'The Bill as reported back from the committee now allows Auckland Council to remove the remaining parts of PC78, but requires them to process a new plan change urgently. This plan change must be notified by 10 October this year, and must enable housing capacity equal to or greater than that enabled by PC78. 'As I've indicated, the Government is keen to see greater density around public transport, particularly City Rail Link stations. The Bill therefore now also requires Auckland to allow for greater density around the key CRL stations of Maungawhau (Mount Eden), Kingsland, and Morningside. 'Auckland Council must enable within a walkable distance from these stations heights and densities reflective of the higher demand for housing and business in these areas. This requirement goes further than the existing requirements under the NPS-UD, and I expect heights and densities that ensure we make the most of the opportunities offered by this transformational transport project. 'The government is also considering whether further amendments to the Bill to fully maximise development opportunities around other CRL stations as necessary, and I will have more to say in due course.' 30 years of growth for Christchurch 'Christchurch City Council also requires a bespoke solution, as they have made a number of decisions on their plan change to implement the MDRS and NPS-UD, known as PC14, but have yet to complete it,' Mr Bishop says. 'Last week I released my decisions on the recommendations from the Council on parts of PC14. These decisions will enable a greater level of development in and around Christchurch City's urban centres. 'Christchurch City Council is currently required to finalise the MDRS components of PC14 by December 2025. The Bill will allow Christchurch to withdraw the MDRS parts of PC14 provided they allow for 30 years of housing growth at the same time. Assessment of that target will be made by me based on advice from officials.' 'In addition to these changes, the Environment Select Committee has recommended a suite of changes to improve the workability of the Bill and help unlock growth in infrastructure and energy, farming and the primary sector,' Mr Bishop says. The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill will have its second reading in the coming weeks and is expected to pass into law in mid-2025.' Waimakariri District Council were much further progressed in their plan change than Auckland and Christchurch, and are expected to make decisions on their plan change on 30 June, before the Bill's expected third reading.
