Leary claims minister not doing job for seniors
Taieri MP Ingrid Leary is accusing Casey Costello of being missing in action in her role as Minister for Seniors, but Costello has hit back, saying it shows the member has a "very shallow understanding of the Seniors portfolio".
Answers by the Minister to Official Information requests and Written Parliamentary questions show she has not taken any papers under the Seniors portfolio to cabinet between taking office in late 2023 and the end of March this year.
A search on the Beehive website shows only one press release from Costello as the Minister for Seniors since the term started.
Leary is the Labour Party's spokesperson for Seniors and said Costello had done more to "help big tobacco than the older New Zealanders she has responsibility to protect the rights and interests of".
"One of the very first things Casey Costello announced as minister was to overturn ground-breaking smokefree legislation that would have saved thousands of lives.
"She also championed a $216 million tax break to encourage use of a tobacco product without proof it would reduce smoking rates, but would definitely profit big tobacco."
By contrast, Leary said Costello "hadn't presented a single Cabinet paper to Cabinet, her party or ministerial colleagues since coming into government in late 2023 to March 2025" and she needed to "prove she's worth her portfolio" by advocating for the rights and interests of seniors.
Leary suggested that could be done by bringing forward the Retirement Villages Act review and by advocating for pay equity in the care and support workforce who look after "many of our grandparents, parents and ourselves in our later years".
But Costello, a New Zealand First MP, rejected the accusation, saying it showed the Labour MP did not know what the government was doing to support older Kiwis.
The Office for Seniors (OFS) was a small office that did not administer legislation and "has never been a large generator of Cabinet papers", she said.
"Cabinet papers are not a measure of either the government's commitment to older New Zealanders, or my focus and effort as Minister for Seniors."
The OFS helped her work across government to deliver better results for older people, Costello said.
Some of that work required her to work with other ministers including, for example, the changes to allow people to build subsidiary dwellings and the Retirement Village review.
"And a substantial part of our policy programme for seniors is around improving aged care, which I'm responsible for as Associate Health Minister."
Costello said older New Zealanders could be assured every commitment made to them in the NZ First-National coalition agreement would be met this during this government's term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Pāti Māori haka sanctions debate continues in Parliament today
The debate on whether Te Pāti Māori co-leaders will face the toughest Parliamentary sanctions ever dished out continues today after it was abruptly adjourned last month to give way to the Budget. The debate is set to begin around 3pm. It will be livestreamed at the top of this article. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Labour and the Greens MPs are expected to push fiercely for a weaker punishment while National is not expected to budge. Parliament's Privileges Committee has recommended suspending Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 days and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven days after a controversial haka in the House last year. The longest suspension in Parliament's 171-year history is three sitting days. The committee's recommendations will be put to the House for debate and likely pass. Labour's shadow leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said Labour believed Te Pāti Māori had overstepped and that they should be sanctioned but that 21 days was disproportionate. 'Our contributions to the debate will be focused on that and not trying to defend their actions.' National minister and Leader of the House Chris Bishop said he was keen to get the matter sorted. Last month, Bishop had unexpectedly called for the debate to be adjourned. Bishop's justification was that if the Te Pāti Māori MPs were suspended from Parliament that particular week, they would miss the debate on the Budget. He also believed delaying the debate would bring the temperature 'down a notch' after recent heated commentary. 'My strong preference would be for Parliament to deal with it, deal with it once, have a big debate about it and then finish it,' he told reporters on Wednesday. 'It's before Parliament, we've had the report, frankly New Zealanders expect us to get on with the business of governing. This is a distraction from the major issues as to why we were elected to this Parliament.' The haka at the centre of the matter happened during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which was eventually voted down at second reading. The haka has since gone viral globally, amassing hundreds of millions of views on social media. Maipi-Clarke, Parliament's youngest MP, brought Parliament to a standstill when she began the haka while ripping up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill, a proposal from Act leader David Seymour to replace the many Treaty principles developed over time by experts and the court with three new ones. Many perceived the bill as a threat to Māori and detrimental to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was a catalyst of the massive hīkoi protest to Parliament in November last year. Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer stood up and joined Maipi-Clarke in the haka, moving from their seats towards the Act party benches. Labour's Peeni Henare also moved away from his seat to perform. Henare later apologised to the Judith Collins-led Privileges Committee for knowingly breaking the rules by stepping away from his seat, but said he stood by his haka and would do it again. The trio from Te Pāti Māori were referred to the Privileges Committee but ignored the initial summons to appear in person, arguing they had been denied legal representation and the ability to appear together. At the time, they promised to hold a separate 'independent' hearing. Te Pāti Māori have been defiant in their defence of the haka. Waititi told reporters on Wednesday afternoon it was not clear exactly what the trio were being punished for. 'Some of the House found it intimidating, some of the House found it exhilarating because half of House stood up. We don't know what the reasons are for the 21 days sanctions.' Waititi spoke with The Hui soon after the committee's unprecedented recommendations were released. He said he was thinking about the people who had entrusted him to 'represent them the best way I know'. 'And that is to be unapologetic, that is to be authentic and honest and respectful of who we are. We should be able to do that without fear or favour and be able to do that without being ashamed of being Māori,' Waititi told The Hui host Julian Wilcox. 'What I feel is that we are being punished for being Māori. The country loves my haka, the world loves my haka, but it feels like they don't love me.'
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
PM demands answers about vetting processes
The Prime Minister is demanding answers about the Beehive's vetting and disclosure processes after the shock resignation of his deputy chief press secretary. Michael Forbes quit after accusations he recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and had intrusive photos of women on his phone. Police top brass were aware of the case last year - but did not notify the Beehive. Deputy political editor Craig McCulloch reports. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Resignation of Prime Minister's press secretary highlights gaps in NZ law on covert recording and harassment
By Cassandra Mudgway of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon takes questions at the Beehive after the resignation of press secretary Michael Forbes. Photo: Analysis: The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his "shock" at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was "open to revisiting" the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of "intimate visual recording" under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 - if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of "intimate visual recording". That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Under the Harassment Act 1997, "harassment" is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as "image-based sexual abuse". The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain - largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or "upskirting", for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as "living documents", able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies. Cassandra Mudgway is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Canterbury. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
