Unions lead protest on pay equity changes
Hundreds of protesters braved the wet weather in Dunedin to voice their outrage at the government's changes to the pay equity process.
The Pay Equity Amendment Bill passed on Wednesday after being rushed through Parliament under urgency.
Affected workers say they are "angry", "hurt" and "disappointed" and feel betrayed by the architect of the legislation, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, but are determined to keep fighting.
The legislation means 33 equity claims being negotiated will now have to restart the process under new criteria.
Nationwide protests took place yesterday.
In Dunedin, members from unions across a variety of sectors including First Union, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the Public Service Association gathered in the Exchange to stand in solidarity against the amendment to the Equal Pay Act.
Speakers from the unions and Labour MPs Ingrid Leary and Rachel Brooking led the chants.
PSA organiser Jen Wilson said the rally was a fairly spontaneous uprising of anger and disgust by women and people who cared about women.
She could not believe the Pay Equity Amendment Bill was passed on Wednesday.
"I was shocked."
The changes were not about equity and were about making cuts for the Budget, she argued.
Although the process was not perfect it had been delivering pay increases and gender fair pay to women over the past few years.
"For some claimants it will be impossible to make a payment successfully.
"The power will be with employers and gender fair pay will be denied to hundreds of thousands of women."
The consequences of the amendment to the Bill were ultimately poverty and hardship.
A petition had gathered more than 56,000 signatures to reverse all claim cancellations, undo equal pay act changes and deliver pay equity.
Earlier this week, Ms van Velden said pay equity claims had been able to progress without strong evidence of undervaluation and it was difficult to tell wether the difference in pay was due to sex-based discrimination or other factors.
Claims had cost the Crown $1.78 billion a year and the changes to discontinue current pay equity claims significantly reduced costs to the Crown.
The current Act was not working as intended and a new and improved pay equity system would provide greater confidence that genuine pay equity issues would be correctly identified and addressed, she said.
mark.john@odt.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Proposed Punishment For Te Pāti Māori MPs For Treaty Principles Haka Stands
Article – RNZ Opposition parties tried to reject the recommendation, but did not have the numbers to vote it down. 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. See how it all unfolded in Parliament 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'.
1News
3 hours ago
- 1News
Opposition calls for tikanga committee following haka debate
Opposition parties have called for a tikanga committee for Parliament following last night's vote on record suspensions for three Te Pāti Māori MPs who performed a haka to protest the Treaty Principles Bill. Speaking to 1News after the debate, Labour MP Willie Jackson said Speaker Gerry Brownlee should put a tikanga committee in place to be chaired by fellow Labour MP Adrian Rurawhe. Jackson said he was worried the New Zealand Parliament would be "misrepresented around the world" over "the worst suspension" in its history. "That would be disgraceful, given the amount of offences and what's gone on in this House for many years.' He said Parliament could be perceived as being "absolutely racist, which it is not". He acknowledged efforts were being made, but not enough. ADVERTISEMENT 'But if we put Adrian Rurawhe there chairing a Tikanga Committee, we'll be on track.' During the debate, he called on the house to consider a tikanga committee that "all MPs" could work on, to go through Parliament's processes in terms of tikanga Māori and tikanga Pākehā and "come up with a sensible way and strategy going forward". Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said her party would have preferred to pause the Privileges Committee proceedings until the tikanga committee could evaluate the "incorporation of tikanga in Parliament". "This would then allow the Privileges Committee to evaluate the conduct of MPs with any new Standing Orders that arise from this work." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer. (Source: 1News) Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the Privileges Committee was not "fit for purpose" and a tikanga committee should have enacted the decision, the discussions and feedback. 1News sought a response from Speaker Gerry Brownlee to Jackson's request for a tikanga committee chaired by Rurawhe. Brownlee's office said: "Mr Speaker has no comment." ADVERTISEMENT Other members of Parliament made reference to the importance of a discussion on tikanga during last night's debate. Interpreting the haka with 'no experience or knowledge' Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said it was an "absolute insult" to Māori to hear people with no experience or knowledge about haka interpret the haka. 'Whether they believe it disorderly, whether they believe it violent, it is an absolute insult to sit here and listen to peoples' interpretation of haka.' ACT MP Karen Chhour agreed discussion around tikanga, te ao Māori, and "all those other issues" may need to be addressed in the future. Green MP Ricardo Menendez-March said he welcomed the call to review the rules of Parliament to better incorporate tikanga. Labour MP Arena Williams said the debate wasn't just about disorder but the "discomfort that happens when Māori protest in a way that the House hasn't learned to accommodate". ADVERTISEMENT "Let's learn from this. Let's bring tikanga into our practice. Let's do our best to understand it, so that we can represent the people who need us." Haka echoed through Parliament and beyond Last night's vote brings to a close a six-month-long process that has resulted in a 21-day suspension for Te Pāti Māori leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and a seven-day suspension for MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke. Te Pāti Māori MPs in the House. (Source: 1News) In November, the three MPs and Labour MP Peeni Henare performed a haka in response to the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill. Henare appeared in front of the Privileges Committee in March, and it was recommended he apologise to the House. The three MPs for Te Pati Māori were referred to the committee but ignored initial summons to appear in-person, claiming an injustice as they had been denied legal representation and were unable to appear together. ADVERTISEMENT Last month, the Privileges Committee found the trio had acted "in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House in the discharge of their duty". The report said it was not acceptable to approach other members on the debating floor and "particularly unacceptable" for Ngarewa-Packer to "to appear to simulate firing a gun" at another member of Parliament. The committee's recommended suspensions drew criticism from the three Opposition parties. The Speaker said it was 'unprecedented', and that no member of Parliament has been suspended for more than three days since it first sat in 1854. He said it was important all perspectives and views were shared before a decision was made on the recommendation, meaning all MPs would be able to voice their opinion if they wished. The debate was initially set to take place on Budget Day (May 20), but Leader of the House Chris Bishop deferred it to last night.
