Pay Equity Law Breaches CEDAW, Women's Rights Party Says
Dame Marilyn Waring, with nine other women, all former MPs, set up a People's Select Committee to consider evidence around the changes because organisations and individuals were denied the opportunity to have a say through the usual Select Committee process.
Submissions to the People's Select Committee on Pay Equity close today [Thursday, 31 July].
In its submission to the People's Select Committee, the Women's Rights Party said: 'The unbridled power of the Cabinet has impacted on an estimated 180,000 women workers whose pay equity claims have been extinguished and are now in limbo. Many of these claims will not be able to restart under the new pay equity regime.'
The Women's Rights Party said the government was in breach of New Zealand's commitments to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) by denying women the right: ' To participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation.' [1]
Countries that have signed up to CEDAW are also required to take 'appropriate measures, including legislation, to ensure the full development and advancement of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the basis of equality with men.'
In addition, CEDAW reinforces ' the right to equal remuneration, including benefits, and to equal treatment in respect of work of equal value as well as equality of treatment in the evaluation of the quality of work'. [2]
Any changes to the law which reduced or removed the protections in relation to pay equity would be in breach of CEDAW, the Women's Rights Party said in its submission.
The main determinant of the pay gap between men and women is 'occupational segregation' which relates to the undervaluing of work typically performed by women and influenced by sex-based stereotypes that regard work associated with caring, for example, as 'women's work'.
The Women's Rights Party said the destruction of avenues for pay equity claims for women workers will have a life-long effect on women well into their retirement.
A major source of the disadvantage women face in retirement is inequity in retirement savings because women earn less than men on average over their working life (this is called the 'pay gap penalty').
NZ Super provides crucial support to those aged over 65, but is especially important for women, who are more likely to work part-time and to have periods of time out of paid work. This, and the unequal division of unpaid work, particularly care work, is called the 'mothering penalty'.[3]
Women continue to predominate in the caring professions such as nursing and teaching, that are undervalued by society and consequently underpaid. Men in those same occupational groups often rise to leadership and managerial roles that attract higher pay in greater numbers and more rapidly than women.
Women also predominate in precarious and low-paid work such as aged care and disability support where they face a daily struggle in the face of cost of living increases in the basics of life – rent, food, petrol.
The cancellation of the existing pay equity claims, and the tightening up of requirements to raise new claims, means that work typically done by women will continue to be undervalued.
'This will contribute to the on-going sex-based pay gap, and to the increasing level of 'in-work poverty' with its impact on family incomes and child poverty. It will exacerbate future income inequality for women in retirement as a result of a lifetime of lower wages than their male counterparts,' the Women's Rights Party said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
9 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Inside Laura Loomer's rise: ‘Obsessive' research, persistence and drive, Oval Office visits
Her posts on social media have preceded other high-profile decisions, including the order ending Hunter Biden's Secret Service detail, which came after Loomer reported that he was being accompanied by agents on a trip to South Africa this spring. Loomer has remained close with Trump despite what she describes as 'contempt' for her by a number of White House staff and Trump advisers. While those close to the President caution that her influence with Trump only goes so far – something Loomer acknowledges – they say it's undeniable that her persistence and loyalty have paid off. 'I know she's known as a 'radical right,' but I think Laura Loomer is a very nice person,' Trump said early this week, answering questions from reporters. 'I think she's a patriot, and she gets excited because of the fact she's a patriot, and she doesn't like things going on that she thinks are bad for the country. I like her.' In her own telling, corroborated by people around Trump, Loomer's ability to capture the President's attention and sometimes influence his actions is hardly mysterious. She uncovers information she believes will be of interest to him, passes it along to Trump officials, then pushes it out publicly in lengthy posts on X, on her website or on her weekly streaming show, 'Loomer Unleashed'. She is confident the reports will get to the President, given her reputation as a trusted ally. Where some Maga commentators rely on days or weeks of sustained outrage from online followers to be sure their message is relayed to Trump, people around Trump are quick to ensure he sees what Loomer reports. 'Most of the time, when my information goes viral, the President hears about it, sees about it in some fashion – one of the Cabinet members tells him, or one of his golf buddies tells him, and he ends up asking me about it,' Loomer said in an interview with the Washington Post. 'That's how it goes down. It's really that simple. People just – they don't seem to be able to fathom that. That's how it works.' Key to Loomer's success is one central personality trait, according to those who have dealt with her. 'She is persistent,' said a person close to Trump, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the President's personal interactions. The White House, seen last week. Photo / Tom Brenner, For The Washington Post 'She's obsessive. She's the most obsessive mind you will ever meet,' said Shane Cory, who helped Loomer set up fundraising for her work after she was banned from social media platforms in 2018 because of anti-Islamic posts. 'The thing that stands out the most with me with Laura is she has no life outside this,' Cory said. 'This is it. From the minute she wakes up in the morning to the minute she goes to sleep, this is all she does, aside from hitting the gym.' A person close to Trump insisted that the President and Loomer speak less than weekly, and 'there were times recently he was very frustrated with her and not speaking to her'. Some of her recommendations have resulted in Trump taking action. Some haven't, the person noted. The President was particularly irked by her criticism of his acceptance of a jet from the Qatari royal family, the person said. Loomer said at the time that after blasting what she called a 'gift from jihadists in suits', she spoke to Trump and apologised for criticising him in public. Trump's willingness to make himself accessible to Loomer should come as no surprise, the person close to Trump said, noting the President's tendency to regularly pick up the phone for callers, including reporters, who contact him directly, outside of standard White House channels. Loomer's relationship with Trump developed as he became delighted by her heckling of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis when he ran against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. She protested against him in person and published a barrage of negative pieces about him. The day DeSantis dropped out of the race, Trump called her with congratulations, she said, adding that she told Trump he was the one who had won so handily. 'He said, 'Yeah, but I couldn't have done it without you,'' Loomer recalled. In the months that followed, when Trump would see her in person at his golf clubs, he would warmly say to those around him that she had helped him defeat DeSantis. In a call, Trump invited Loomer for meeting Loomer's latest Oval Office meeting illustrates both her influence and its limits. The meeting grew out of a telephone call between Trump and Loomer in which the President 'expressed interest' in a topic she had been reporting on 'about a personnel issue', Loomer said. She declined to say which one of her exposés about Administration officials had prompted the meeting. Days before the call, however, she had drawn attention to Philip Droege, the longtime director of the White House's Office of Records Management. In a July 14 post on X, Loomer suggested that Droege was partially responsible for Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club being raided, citing a 2022 Washington Post story. Trump invited Loomer to join him for lunch, but when she arrived at the White House that day, she learned that staff had scheduled her visit to be a regular meeting, and she did not dine with the President. Loomer said that one thing was clear. 'I know for a fact that the President has expressed concern about Philip Droege being in his Administration,' Loomer said. 'I don't work for the President, but I do know that when this report came out, and when the President himself saw it, he expressed concern.' The day after her White House meeting, she published a longer story on her website about Droege's employment. He remains employed. The White House did not respond to questions about allegations Loomer has raised, but in a statement, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump 'has put together the best cabinet and staff in history, and the historic achievements over the past six months prove it'. Her access to Trump is counterbalanced by efforts from people around him to keep her at a distance, Loomer said. Trump has offered her jobs 'on four separate occasions', she said, adding that the jobs were 'snatched away in acts of professional jealousy'. She has never officially been a part of Trump's campaign or White House teams. Loomer applied for a press pass to cover the Trump White House and considered moving to Washington, where she employs one correspondent. But neither of their applications have been approved, despite repeatedly asking about the status of receiving credentials, she said. From activist seeking traction to Trump influencer For years, Loomer has been a thorn in the side of Republicans and Democrats alike, ferociously going after people she believed weren't sufficiently aligned with the Maga movement and casting herself as an internet underdog who was 'silenced in America' and became the 'most banned woman in the world'. In her early 20s, she worked for Project Veritas, the far-right activist group that gained fame for making surreptitious videos to discredit mainstream media figures and other ideological opponents. In 2017, she was banned from Uber and Lyft for a viral rant against 'Islamic immigrant' drivers; a year later, she was kicked off Twitter for a post calling Representative Ilhan Omar (Democrat-Minnesota) anti-Semitic. After Elon Musk bought Twitter, he reinstated Loomer and many other right-wing influencers, giving her a kind of semi-celebrity status on the Maga internet. Her return helped expand Loomer's sphere of influence in right-wing social media circles, where the self-proclaimed 'pro-white nationalism' activist and 'proud Islamophobe' is known for her rapid-fire pace and anything-goes attack style. Loomer's follower count on Twitter, now X, exploded from about 270,000 in late 2022 to 1.3 million followers in November, when Trump was elected again, a Washington Post analysis of platform data shows. She has gained 400,000 followers in the months since. Loomer has tapped into a symbiosis where 'a conservative influencer makes something a scandal, and if it picks up enough traction, then it becomes policy', said Nina Jankowicz, a researcher who briefly served in the Biden Administration as the executive director of a newly created Disinformation Governance Board before intense criticism from right-wing influencers forced it to shut down. At this point, Trump doesn't even need to see posts from Loomer for them to have an impact, Jankowicz said. Her relationship with the President is well known, and 'the underlings in the Administration need to act quickly to prove their fealty'. 'Couldn't get a job at McDonald's' Loomer is '100% self-made, through her ferocious personality', said Cory, who has known her since her Project Veritas days. 'She creates the echo chamber,' he said. After she was banned from social media, she told Cory, 'I couldn't get a job at McDonald's', he recalled in an interview. Cory worked with her to build up a donor base, recalling her being 'the fastest-rising one' of his clients who started from scratch. Loomer clarified that she did not actually apply for a job at the fast-food restaurant, but couldn't get hired anywhere because of 'smears' against her after facing bans. Raheem Kassam, the editor of the conservative National Pulse and co-owner of Butterworth's, a Capitol Hill restaurant that welcomes the Maga crowd, said he has known Loomer for years. It isn't uncommon for her to call at midnight to talk about something she's working on, he said. 'It's this sense of drive that she has that you cannot find in many other people,' Kassam said. 'She really puts her task and purpose above everything, above her personal life. She believes in a certain set of things, and she's willing to throw herself in front of traffic for them.' She recently unveiled an online tip line for government officials who need to 'be exposed for their misdeeds', using the same website where she sells her book Loomered and 'Donald Trump Did Nothing Wrong!' T-shirts. But she has also attempted to retain her outsider status, often needling Administration officials as unfit for the task of protecting the President. As with other influencers, Loomer has sought to use her elevated status on the right-wing web as a revenue stream. On the crowdfunding site Buy Me a Coffee, where Loomer directs X followers seeking to support her work, she has raised nearly US$50,000 to help cover her 'research and travel expenses' and other costs associated with her 'investigative reports'. On the alternative video site Rumble, Loomer has posted more than 300 videos since late 2021, many of them recordings of live broadcasts from 'Loomer Unleashed,' where she often talks for three hours at a time. During one recent stream, Loomer took a brief pause from warning about how 'Communists and jihadist Muslims' were waging war to 'carry out the ultimate destruction of Western civilisation' to thank her sponsor, the Colorado-based gold merchant Kirk Elliott Precious Metals, and air a commercial in which she contentedly ate popcorn as a violent mob raged outside her window. She was relaxed, she said, because she had stockpiled silver and gold. Loomer said Trump has 'an eye for spotting talent', and that she is grateful for him 'recognising the value in my work during the primary and for inviting me to Mar-a-Lago for a meeting, and for commencing a friendship with me'. 'It's a friendship that I cherish,' Loomer said, 'and it's hard for a lot of people to come to terms with'.
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Fishing industry nets changes to cameras, discards and catch restrictions
The Government has agreed to overhaul controls on fishing companies, in what the fisheries minister says are the biggest changes since New Zealand's world-leading quota management system was introduced in 1986. He acknowledges environmental groups will be dismayed, but says the rules reset, agreed this week by Cabinet, will put income, revenue, growth and jobs first. In an interview with Newsroom Pro, Shane Jones say he's changing the rules so fishers who catch too much, or catch the wrong species, don't face such big financial penalties. He'll do that by introducing flexibility to the 'deemed value', which is the higher rate paid by fishing companies for inadvertently catching fish outside their quota. And they'll be able to discard unwanted catch at sea, rather than having to bring it back to land for counting. He'll continue the rollout of cameras on 255 medium-sized inshore fishing boats, but will bar the release of the footage under the Official Information Act. The big deep-sea fishing vessels have official observers on board, so won't be required to have cameras. Jones is announcing the Fisheries Act overhaul to the annual conference of industry group Seafood NZ, in Nelson on Wednesday. Chief executive Lisa Futschek welcomes the changes as 'very sensible'. The minister says: 'These reforms are the most significant since 1986. They don't seek to overturn the installation of cameras, but we will be restricting access to footage from the cameras and confining it to both the industry, where appropriate, and the state.' Since the rollout of cameras began, there's been increased reporting of illegal fish discards and captures of dolphins and sea birds, but Jones argues that's evidence of the system working effectively. 'I don't want a situation where footage taken out of context is used to demonise or catastrophise what's happening in the industry.' His law change to control the release of footage is similar to a section of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act, set in place in 2012 to avoid and control the spread of disease among cattle and deer. That specifically exempts the ID and tracing data from the Official Information Act; Jones wants to do the same with fishing footage. 'I know that it's likely to generate a fair bit of white water, but I feel that this approach is replicating what John Key and the National Party did when the NAIT cattle ID system was introduced.' Judicial 'catastrophising' The Government will also constrain the grounds for judicial review of catch allowances, in an attempt to stop a string of successful challenges to ministerial decisions. Jones says: 'The fundamentals of the quota management system aren't changing,' he says. 'It will still be driven by robust scientific data, but there's always a trade-off.' The first challenge was taken 20 years ago by the NZ Sport Fishing Council, opposing catch allowances in the struggling kahawai fishery. Supported by two big iwi, the council argued the minister should take into account New Zealanders' broad social, economic and cultural wellbeing when making decisions around fisheries resources. Then in 2021, the High Court overturned former fisheries minister Stuart Nash's decision on tarakihi fishing limits. And this year, the Environmental Law Initiative and Northland iwi won decisions requiring Jones to be more rigorous in his decision-making for the Northland rock lobster fishery. Jones isn't happy about these court rulings, and singled out the cost to the fishing industry of court actions by the Environmental Law Initiative, in particular. 'They are recklessly litigating in all directions. Well, they don't have more power than the sovereignty of Parliament, and we are not having a situation where they arrogate to themselves the ability to set quota with the acquiescence of High Court judges.' The Fisheries Act talks about both utilisation and sustainability, the minister says. 'Sadly, the judicial direction of travel is to undermine utilisation and catastrophise the perceived threats to sustainability. 'So these changes are an attempt to remind everyone that there are two outcomes in the purpose of the Act: the sustainable level of fishing, but most importantly, the utilisation of this wildcatch resource. 'We've got the bizarre situation where litigators are now going back five years,' he adds. 'So an option which I have got Cabinet to agree to is that we should restrict such litigiousness, in the same vein as we have established [restrictions] via the fast-track legislation. 'It's not to totally inhibit the ability of litigators to challenge the Crown, but we're not going to have this situation where every mote of our decisions is open to a lawyer's feast. Environmental groups and others challenging ministerial decisions will have only 30 days to proceed with their action, barring extraordinary circumstances. Their challenge will have to be to the actual business of allocation decisions. At present, the minister says, these court cases are trying to solve every ecological, biological or ecosystem problem, when many of the marine problems are actually caused by land-based siltation and pollution. 'I say to Kiwis, do you want industry, jobs, export earnings and a flourishing source of regional revenue in fisheries? We can't have it if the High Court and the litigators are trying to arrogate to themselves more authority over quota fishing allocations than the Crown itself.' (Update: Environmental Law Initiative response, at end) The industry agrees with removing camera footage from being subject to the Official Information Act. 'We support this,' Seafood NZ's Lisa Futschek says. 'We want to stress, we also support cameras on fishing vessels. They can be a useful tool. 'However they were intended to be about verification, not vilification, so we support access to the footage for the regulator, who then can pass on the data collected from that footage to the public.' Some bigger fishing companies, like iwi-owned Moana NZ, already have their own cameras on all their boats. But there are some strong opponents: Westfleet chief executive Craig Boote previously told Newsroom they were an invasion of workers' privacy. 'It's going to be very, very difficult for us to recruit young men when they're gonna get perved on 24/7.' Futschek accepts the regulator should have access to footage to ensure that fishers are doing what they say they're doing, but says enabling members of the general public to see this footage would be unfair. 'We also know, sadly, that there are groups who will exploit it for their own gain and potentially use it out of context,' she says. 'In a world where privacy can never be guaranteed, we are deeply concerned about the safety of our fishers who already face abuse and harassment just for doing their jobs.' Discarding unwanted catch Jones is announcing other 'significant' changes to the Fisheries Act. Fishing crews will no longer have to bring every fish they catch back to land. They can be discarded in the ocean. Futschek says the proposal, as it was included in earlier drafts of the law changes, would allow vessels with either cameras or observers on board to return unwanted fish to the sea. This is known as monitored returns. She emphasises that under that proposal, fish returned to sea will still count against the fisher's total allowable catch allocations. 'In other words, they will still have to 'pay' for all the fish they catch.' Counting the fish against their allocations will continue to strongly incentivise fishers to avoid catching fish they don't want, she says, either by making adjustments to their fishing gear or avoiding areas where those unwanted fish are likely to be. 'Of course, our fishers do a lot of this mitigation already and we need to be realistic that sometimes unwanted catch can't be avoided. But allowing monitored returns is more sustainable (and economically sound) than the current alternative, which is to bring all fish back to shore, where unwanted fish will not find a market and will then become a waste product. 'Putting that fish back in the sea allows it to remain part of the ocean food web.' Carrying over annual catch entitlement Jones says the law change will also allow fishing companies to roll over their annual catch entitlement, for up to four years. If they don't catch their full entitlement one year, they can catch more the following year. It's not clear if this also means they won't be penalised when they catch too much one year, so long as they reduce their catch over subsequent years to balance the ledger. 'This will not compromise the ability of the Crown to intervene, if egregious occasions arise where we're catching more fish than was originally anticipated,' Jones says. 'But it's going to bring some efficiency and greater certainty for the industry, when they're planning over several years, as to maintaining an economically feasible level of catch.' This is more than the one-year carry-over proposed in draft law changes. Futschek says they look forward to hearing the details of this change, when the minister addresses the conference in Nelson. Some form of carry-over is 'very sensible', she says. 'We're confident it will not affect sustainability, because the overall total annual catch entitlement will be the same over time. Also, as proposed, it is intended to help take account of major adverse events such as cyclones.' She emphasises that catch entitlement carry-forward does not allow anyone to catch over the sustainable limit. It simply allows some flexibility to catch it across more than one year. Sam Woolford of lobby group LegaSea tells Newsroom: 'These changes are short sighted profiteering. If the minister wanted to ensure the future of the seafood sector, he would be helping transition away from destructive fishing techniques (particularly in our coastal waters.) 'The reality is simple. To have a healthy fishing industry, you must first have a healthy marine environment. By entrenching the status quo, they are killing the goose that lays the golden egg. 'Furthermore, minister Jones seems to have given little consideration to the significant public interests in our coastal fisheries – 25,000 kiwis submitted against these proposals. They realise the gravity of these proposals.' Update: The Environmental Law Initiative says limiting judicial review was not consulted on, and is a very concerning development. The organisation's director of legal and research, Dr Matt Hall, says this would undermine the accountability of decision-making, the rule of law, and ultimately the health of New Zealand's ecosystems. The initiative has won successive High Court cases against the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries because Ministers have made unlawful decisions under the Fisheries Act: 'Any restrictions on judicial review under the Fisheries Act will mean that when unlawful decisions are made, they may be unchallengeable. This would undermine the rule of law.' Hall says there's a 'catastrophe' of kina barrens up and down the East Coast of Northland, because successive governments have allowed too much crayfish to be taken. And in the largest orange roughy fishery, the population has crashed – even though Fisheries NZ has supposedly been overseeing the sustainable management of the stock. 'Rigorous review of decision-making by officials and Ministers, including through the courts, is crucial therefore to ensure the sustainability of our oceans and to protect Aotearoa New Zealand's interests in our exclusive economic zone.'
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Leak suggests minister's U-turn on alcohol sales reform
By Guyon Espiner of RNZ A leaked Cabinet paper shows the government was planning to restrict the hours bottle stores and supermarkets could sell alcohol but then backed away to focus on reforms more friendly to the alcohol industry. The Associate Justice Minister - ACT's Nicole McKee - is reforming the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act and had said that part of her focus would be reducing alcohol harm, which currently costs the country $9.1 billion a year. But documents leaked to RNZ, including a draft Cabinet paper, suggest the minister is now switching the focus of her reforms to making business easier for the alcohol industry. The documents show McKee initially proposed to change off-licence sale hours, from the current 7am to 11pm, to only allow alcohol sales between 9am and 9pm. The draft Cabinet paper says restricting opening hours could have had a major impact on violent crime - preventing 2400 "violent victimisations" each year. But that move has now been axed. A Ministry of Justice email, also leaked to RNZ, shows justice officials "were directed by Minister McKee to proceed with speed to lodge a revised Cabinet paper" to go before a Cabinet committee on August 13. "The focus of the paper had changed during negotiations - it is now on reducing regulatory burden with some of the harm reduction measures no longer included - e.g. reducing maximum default trading hours." McKee told RNZ it was regrettable her draft Cabinet paper was leaked. "I won't be discussing a few cherry-picked parts of a draft paper through the media before I've even had an opportunity to discuss the issue with my Cabinet colleagues," she said in a statement to RNZ. "I am extremely disappointed that a draft Cabinet paper has been shared with media. This undermines the integrity of the public service and erodes New Zealanders' trust in public servants." 'Strong correlation' between off-licence opening hours and violent crime The leaks show that in an early version of her Cabinet paper, McKee proposed to restrict bottle store opening hours to between 9am and 9pm in a bid to reduce violent crime. "I am focused on hazardous drinking which can lead to violent crime. Evidence shows a strong correlation between later opening hours for off-licences and violent crime," the Cabinet paper originally said. "Ministry of Justice analysis indicates that bringing forward the closing hour to 9pm could see up to 2400 fewer violent victimisations annually." The paper said restricting opening hours would reduce sales revenue for off-licences, as about 20 percent of sales were made between 8pm and 11pm and about 2 percent before 9am. The paper originally said the impacts on business had been "weighed carefully" against the benefits of reducing violent crime. But the leaks show this was changed in a later version. "I am not proposing any changes to the maximum trading hours for licence holders," McKee wrote in the updated paper, noting Auckland and Christchurch had already set a 9pm closing time under their Local Alcohol Policies. "I consider that this is sufficient to manage concerns around licence hours." Focus now on 'reducing red tape' for law-abiding businesses McKee would not be interviewed by RNZ, but confirmed her reforms would now focus on making it easier for businesses in the alcohol industry. "My focus is on reducing red tape restricting businesses and New Zealanders who play by the rules. The law Labour left us with is a mess," she said. The draft Cabinet paper obtained by RNZ shows McKee is now proposing to make it easier for clubs and bars to serve alcohol outside normal trading hours when screening major sport or cultural events. McKee's Cabinet paper also proposes giving the alcohol industry more power when faced with objections to liquor licences. The paper says changes in 2023 allowed any person or group to oppose a liquor licence but that McKee wants to overturn this so objections only come from the community impacted. "To better balance community voice and impacts on business I seek agreement to only allow objections to licensing applications by people or groups and organisations in the same territorial authority as the premises." There are also moves to protect businesses impacted by changes to a council's Local Alcohol Policy (LAP) - where communities determine when and how alcohol is sold. "To protect existing businesses if a LAP is adopted or amended I also seek agreement to prevent a DLC (District Licensing Committee) from declining a renewal application if the licence would be inconsistent with the relevant LAP." The changes would also give applicants for a liquor licence a right of reply to objections received in DLC hearings. Andrew Galloway, executive director of Alcohol Healthwatch, funded by the Ministry of Health, said reducing trading hours for bottle stores and supermarkets would have had a major impact on reducing alcohol harm. "Off-licences sell over 80 percent of alcohol in Aotearoa and these off-licences are over-concentrated in the most deprived areas. Restricting off-licence supply of alcohol would be especially important in reducing alcohol-related harm." Galloway said that when he became aware the government was looking at restricting off-licence trading hours he said to his team "we should prepare for a U-turn" once industry lobbying swung into action. "We will continue to miss every meaningful opportunity to reduce or prevent alcohol harm in New Zealand if we continue to allow unbridled access to power for harmful commodity industries."
