Labour Defends Raising Column As C-word Debate Spirals
Article – RNZ
Meanwhile, Labour has rejected the idea that it was a poor political judgment to reference a column using the word in Parliament.
Debate over use of the c-word is distracting attention from the main issue of pay equity changes, a law lecturer says.
Canterbury University senior law lecturer Cassandra Mudgway who has researched the issue of abuse of female politicians was commenting on the furore that has erupted over its use by both a Sunday-Star Times journalist and Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden.
She believes journalist Andrea Vance was justified in using it to provoke a reaction to her article on pay equity changes.
Meanwhile, 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.
Labour's Jan Tinetti asked the Minister responsible a question about the piece during Parliament's Question Time on Wednesday, to which Brooke Van Velden dropped the c-bomb 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, and said 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.'
Mudgway told Morning Report the use of the c-word by Vance in her article was 'a political choice to use uncivil language' to express her frustration over changes to pay equity.
The 'down side' was that it had now led to debate about who could use it which was distracting from the main issue.
'I think focusing on the journalist's choice of words risks obscuring that bigger picture – the fact that thousands of women in historically undervalued jobs just have had their path of pay equity made longer and harder. That's also misogynist harm and we should also be concerned with that.'
Online misogyny against women MPs was already widespread and it was pointless to focus on just one article, she said.
As part of violence, harassment and abuse the c-word was often directed at women, she said.
The coalition has criticised Labour for not calling out the column itself, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis taking aim at Labour 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.
'A lot of sympathy' for van Velden
The chair of Parliament's Privilieges Committee Judith Collins said there was free speech in Parliament and she did not believe the Speaker would take any action to discipline van Velden because 'he didn't make any comment on the day'.
'But I can understand how Brooke van Velden felt. It's all very well for print media to essentially use that word against women like herself and myself and our colleagues and so many people have said how it made them feel.
'It was used in anger. It was a disgraceful piece of so-called journalism and I understand how Brooke felt so there's a lot of sympathy I think for the way that she has had to take the brunt of this matter.'
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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
36 minutes ago
- Scoop
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What Is It, What Does It Propose And What's Next?
Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: . The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that"regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Labour Keeps Door Open For Te Pāti Māori, But Urges Focus On 'Core Areas'
Tuesday, 10 June 2025, 7:13 pm Article: RNZ Morning Report Chris Hipkins says Te Pāti Māori needs to focus on important issues such as jobs, health and homes, like Labour is, keeping the door open to working with them despite three of their MPs being suspended from Parliament. Labour Māori development spokesperson Willie Jackson told Te Pāti Māori not every Māori supported them after three of its MPs disrupted a vote on the Treaty Principles Bill last year with a haka. The party could have responded differently after the three representatives - co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi, and first-term MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke - were referred to the Privileges Committee, and suspended, Jackson said last week. "They love you, I love you, but some of the stuff is not going down well," Jackson said. Labour Party said last month while it agreed the actions met the criteria of contempt, it was concerned that the penalties were "unduly severe". Labour's own Peeni Henare took part in the haka, but was not suspended after apologising. Hipkins told Morning Report on Monday the feedback he was getting from around the country was that Māori wanted to see Labour focused on the issues that bring New Zealanders together and lead the country forward. "That includes focusing on things like jobs, health, homes, the sorts of things that New Zealanders all want to see their government focused on." He said while his party worked in co-operation with Te Pāti Māori, they were also in competition for votes. "We have previously held all the Māori electorates, we'd like to do so again. We're gonna, you know, we're gonna go out there and contest those vigorously at the next election, but we can also work together on areas where we have common ground." The most recent RNZ-Reid Research poll found Labour could lead the next government, but it would need both the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Hipkins said Labour would look to have a similar relationship with Te Pāti Māori as it had with the Green Party and "set out clear parameters for a working relationship". "I think that's one of the things that Christopher Luxon hasn't done with ACT and with New Zealand First to say, 'Look, these are the areas where we think we can work together. These are the areas where we're not willing to compromise.' "And, you know, I think that includes setting clear standards of expectation around ministerial behaviour - so anyone who's going to be a minister in any government that I lead will be expected to behave like a minister, and that doesn't vary by party. "So unlike Christopher Luxon who seems to think that Winston Peters and David Seymour are subject to different rules to everybody else; I think all ministers should be subjected to the same rules." Hipkins rejected a suggestion that Jackson was appeasing pākeha with his comments. "Ultimately, if you want to be part of the government, then you need to follow the rules of the government." Asked how Labour could work with a party whose MPs broke those rules, Hipkins said it was "ultimately" down to voters. "We're going to be going out there competing vigorously for every vote we can get for Labour. If people believe in the sorts of things that the Labour Party believes in, they want to see a government that's focused on core areas like jobs, health, and homes, then they need to vote for Labour in order to achieve that." Hipkins said he would prefer to have an "environment where the government of the day, whomever that was, always had a majority". "That would be great, but that's not the reality. That's not what New Zealand voters have chosen for our electoral system. They've chosen a system in which we have to work with other political parties. "I think unlike the current government though, I'll be clear that, you know, there are some areas where, we, we will have standards and everybody will have to follow them." © Scoop Media
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Government Warned Corruption And 'Insider Threats' Increasing In New Zealand
The government has been warned that corruption and "insider threats" are increasing in New Zealand, despite the country's longstanding reputation as a country largely free of it. An advisory group says the country is poorly prepared to tackle the increasing threat and recommends developing a national anti-corruption strategy and modernising the Crimes Act, which the Minister responsible says is key. The Ministerial Advisory Group on transnational and organised crime was set up in February to provide independent advice and recommendations to improve the cross-government response to what Associate Minister of Police Casey Costello described as " an increasing threat." Previous reports have said New Zealand was "losing the fight" against organised crime, and specified a need for police to have greater financial powers to fight it. The third report has stated New Zealand's "lucrative market" and established crime networks have made the country "more susceptible than ever" to corruption and insider threats. It also pointed to the "deteriorating situation in the Pacific" as making the region more vulnerable. It defined corruption as the "abuse of access or authority to advance the objectices of organised crime". "It is a critical enabler of organised crime, particularly at national borders. It grants criminal networks access to protection, sensitive information, and operational impunity. "This is a real and increasing threat," the report said. The group was told by enforcement agencies about "trusted insiders" at ports and airports helping to retrieve concealed shipments of illicit drugs before customs inspections. "That information is consistent with an unpublished global report which estimates that 70 percent of maritime seizures worldwide involved links to trusted insiders." It raised a specific concern in the Pacific where exposure is increased due to expansive maritime borders, strategic trade corridors and growing cross-border flows of goods and people. "When individuals in border security, customs, or immigration are compromised, criminal groups can exploit these weak points to smuggle drugs, weapons, other illicit goods, and people with minimal detection. "Bribery, coercion, and cronyism can transform ports, airports, and checkpoints into open channels." If corruption was left unchecked, the report warned it could erode the integrity of New Zealand's institutions and undermine its collective security. "We are already seeing increasing pressure on Pacific nations which have limited capacity to detect, investigate and prosecute organised crime threats. "The financial incentives offered by organised crime groups can be tempting - especially for those working in jobs with useful access, but low pay, in New Zealand and within the Pacific." The advisory group reports to Costello who told RNZ she was not surprised by the contents of the report, except to learn that New Zealand was the only Five Eyes member who did not have an anti-corruption strategy. She did however believe New Zealanders might be shocked to learn corruption was getting worse, "we've kind of considered ourselves as a little bit of a haven". The report specified New Zealand's "reputation as a country largely free from corruption has long been a source of national pride and international credibility". But also pointed this had led to a "degree of inertia," referencing Julie Haggie, chief executive of Transparency International NZ, who said in the report "New Zealand's response to increasing corruption pressures over several years has been lacklustre and complacent". "New Zealand is poorly prepared to deter and tackle the increasing threat of corruption, but that is not to say nothing is being done," said the report. Costello said the report was not suggesting organisations were corrupt, but the ability for organised crime to target individuals was there. "That's where we see that familial or cultural pressures, that ability to have control over individuals, and that's not just in the drug world." She said New Zealand was not out of control, but the country needed to shift the way it was doing things, strengthen legislation and put clear strategies in place. Costello believed bringing the Crimes Act up to date to deal with corruption was one of the key recommendations. She said work being done at the moment was bringing agencies together to have consistency around sharing information. Another recommendation was to have a centralised agency that would have oversight across all agencies. "Whether that's in the public service commission, or whether it's in police or SFO [Serious Fraud Office] or a new agency, it's having that one oversight so that we work more cooperatively." In regards to the Pacific, she said it was important New Zealand supported its economic growth and viability. "When people are poor, then the amount of money you need to corrupt someone is relatively low. "Leaning in more to support those economies to help them not just gain knowledge, but actually keep these systems in place. "How do they optimise their control of their border so they're collecting excise, that they're optimising the revenue they can get from legitimate business, as well as ensuring that they aren't corrupted." She said the reports were about making New Zealanders more aware about organised crime and an appreciation of the challenges that it presents.
