logo
Lost for words when having to describe a pillock

Lost for words when having to describe a pillock

Sir Ian Taylor discusses rushed legislation, forgotten women and the triumphant return of the word "pillock".
I recently finished reading a book called A Dictionary of Lost Words, a moving tale that left me thinking about the stories we lose when certain voices are left out of the conversation.
The story centres on Esme, a young girl who spends her childhood beneath the sorting table where the first Oxford English Dictionary is being compiled, quite literally beneath the men deciding which words matter.
From her hiding place, she begins collecting discarded words, many of them spoken by women, by workers, by people whose language didn't fit the mould. It's a reminder that history isn't just written by the victors, it is often edited by them as well.
So, when I read about the rushed passage of the government's Equal Pay Amendment Bill, I couldn't help but wonder what voices, what words, were they hoping would drop beneath the table.
Brooke van Velden, the minister behind the Bill, assures us it's all about empowering women. A noble aim, no question. But her reassurances feel a lot like those of Emmeline Pankhurst, the famous suffragette who also features in A Dictionary of Lost Words.
I had always thought that Pankhurst had fought the fight for women to vote in the UK. What I learned was her fight was only for "some" women, not all women. Women who were property-owning, well-spoken and preferably able to prepare a cucumber sandwich without upsetting the tablecloth. Her fight did not include the working-class women of the time.
One could argue that Brooke herself fits nicely into Pankhurst's vision of the ideal female citizen: well-paid, well-dressed and well clear of the factory floor, the night shift in aged care, our overstretched hospitals and schools, or our early childhood centres.
Her work career appears to have been confined to the closeted halls of public relations for firms like Philip Morris, the multinational tobacco company where she was a "corporate affairs consultant".
From there she has stepped into the world of politics where, as part of a minority partner in the coalition government, she enjoys the comfort of a salary of more than $300,000 a year, plus expenses. Not to mention the guaranteed, uncontested, annual pay rises, between now and the next election, of 10%.
In the context of The Dictionary of Lost Words, the word "irony" springs to mind.
I asked ChatGPT how Esme, the central character of the book, might define the word irony in the context of Minister van Velden's rationale for her actions. This was the response.
Esme's Definition of Irony in The Context of the Amendments to the Pay Equity Bill
Irony (n) A word that slips between intention and outcome, cloaked in contradiction. A silent smile, often bitter, where justice is spoken but not served.
It then went on to add:
"Esme might sit with the Oxford Dictionary draft in one hand and the newspaper article in the other, her fingers brushing over the word 'equity' as if to weigh its truth. She would see the irony not simply in the Bill's withdrawal but in who introduced it. A woman in power proposing emergency legislation that would silence the voices of those sitting beneath the table with Esme — women whose work has long gone uncounted: the carers, the cleaners, the teachers, the nurses. Those without names who carry trays, wipe brows, and raise other people's children. Irony is when those who have been voiceless the longest are asked, yet again, to wait their turn."
Van Velden, like Pankhurst, seems to be championing women's rights while quietly stepping around the very women most in need of them.
At another level, there's a wonderful irony (that word again) in A Dictionary of Lost Words.
"Pillock" — this too was a word that fell beneath the table, excluded from the original Oxford Dictionary by the men making the decisions on what words were to be included.
Apparently, it was a "woman's word" and, crucially, one used exclusively to describe men. You can probably guess why the learned gentlemen of the time didn't think it worthy of inclusion.
Back then, every word submitted for the dictionary had to be written on a small piece of paper called a slip, with an example sentence showing how the word was used in context.
I can already picture the slip for this one:
Word: Pillock (n)
Example in context: On hearing David Seymour make the claim that Brooke van Velden had saved her budget, the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, was heard to mutter, "what a pillock."
I can almost see Esme quietly sliding that one into the submission box with a wry smile. No explanation required.
But there is a lot of evidence that supports the case for pillock being used in the context of David Seymour.
— Treaty Principles Bill: millions of taxpayer money spent on a Bill everyone knew would fail when it came to Parliament.
— School lunch cuts: $3 meals outsourced offshore, delivered late and barely edible.
— Charter schools: more millions of taxpayer money spent on administration for just seven schools, one with half a dozen students — learning French.
— The tractor stunt: driving a Land Rover up Parliament's steps, ignoring the advice of security guards that it was an offence.
All this while frontline workers like nurses, early childhood teachers, cleaners and caregivers, the very people historically undervalued and underpaid, are left out of the room, out of the process and out of the promise of change. They deserve to be heard.
Amendments to a Bill meant to fix a history of undervaluing women's work is being pushed through in a way that continues to undervalue women's voices. Esme would be shaking her head.
The fight for equity isn't just about ticking boxes. It's about understanding context, listening deeply and recognising the value of every contribution, not just the ones made from a seat in Parliament or a leather chair in a boardroom.
We have a chance here in Aotearoa to show what real leadership looks like. But leadership doesn't mean charging ahead with blinkers on. It means slowing down long enough to make sure everyone's with you, all voices are heard, especially those that are under the table.
Otherwise, we may one day find ourselves leafing through a future Dictionary of Lost Bills wondering how we managed to lose the meaning of "equity" and how the word pillock made such a triumphant comeback.
I was left wondering what alternatives might be used in place of pillock. There are a number — idiot, fool, simpleton, dunce — but a new one will be added to the list on May 31.
Deputy Prime Minister.
— Sir Ian Taylor is founder and managing director of Dunedin company Animation Research.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal
Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal

Newsroom

time05-08-2025

  • Newsroom

Making heated tobacco products cheaper than cigarettes is no scandal

Opinion: The Government's decision to introduce a lower excise rate for heated tobacco products (HTPs) has been widely framed as 'giving tax breaks to tobacco companies'. It's a provocative line – and politically potent – but it doesn't help us have an honest, evidence-informed discussion about how to reduce smoking harm, particularly for the most disadvantaged New Zealanders, or how to deal with conflicts of interest. Let's be clear: this isn't a corporate subsidy, so long as the reduced tax is passed on with cheaper products. It's an excise adjustment applied to a class of tobacco products that heat rather than burn tobacco. (Like vaping products, HTPs are marketed as smoke-free alternatives to cigarettes, but are not the same thing.) Combustion is what makes smoking lethal. Cigarettes burn at over 800C, releasing thousands of toxic compounds. Heated tobacco products operate at much lower temperatures and don't produce smoke – just an aerosol – with far fewer harmful constituents. That distinction matters. The multinational tobacco company Philip Morris does hold a monopoly over HTPs in New Zealand. That's not ideal, but it doesn't mean the tax policy exists for Philip Morris International. The intention is to make a less harmful product more affordable than cigarettes – a principle long accepted in tobacco harm reduction, and already applied to vaping. Unfortunately, it appears Philip Morris International hasn't yet passed on the tax savings to the small number of HTP users in New Zealand – this is the real scandal. In addition, the apparent impact of PMI on government policy is tough to ignore, and contrary to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which seeks to protect government policy from tobacco industry influence. New Zealand has rightly taxed cigarettes heavily to deter use. But excise taxes are also regressive. The remaining people who smoke – fewer than 7 percent of adults – are disproportionately Māori, Pasifika, low-income, and more likely to experience mental health distress. The associate minister of health, Casey Costello, justified the excise differential by citing relative harm reduction and the growing inequity of uniform excise. Her reasoning deserves more attention than it has been given. Critics argue there's insufficient evidence that HTPs help people quit, but the UK Office for Health Improvement and Disabilities, the UK Committee on Toxicity, and the US Food and Drug Administration all acknowledge HTPs reduce exposure to toxicants compared with cigarettes. That doesn't make them harmless – but being less harmful than smoking is enough to warrant a differential tax. The example of Japan is instructive. There, HTPs make up over 30 percent of tobacco sales. Though vaping is banned, cigarette consumption has plummeted by 40 percent in some markets. Surveys suggest many smokers switched completely to HTPs. Youth uptake has been minimal. No policy is perfect, but that's a shift in the right direction. What's really at stake here? Not a tax break for big tobacco – but increasing the options for people who smoke and want to quit, and whether we believe in a response to nicotine products based on their comparative risks to human health as a foundation for public health policy. A more productive debate would ask: • Are they less harmful than cigarettes, and do they help smokers quit? • Are tax savings being passed on to consumers? • Are HTPs being promoted responsibly? • Will there be an independent evaluation of their impact on smoking rates? In a country that leads the world with its Smokefree 2025 goal, we should be asking how to accelerate the decline in smoking, not defending a one-size-fits-all excise regime that's increasingly disconnected from the realities of risk, behaviour, and equity. If HTPs can help some people switch, pricing them appropriately is not a scandal. It's a good policy – provided it's transparent, monitored, and grounded in evidence, and the tax savings are passed on to consumers.

Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill

Scoop

time02-08-2025

  • Scoop

Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill

The group's chair, Gail Duncan, said: 'The Social Justice Group have sent in their submission to the Peoples Select Committee on Pay Equity. This Select Committee was the brainchild of Marilyn Waring and we were very grateful to have the opportunity to submit ' The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards. The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry. The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless. The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990). Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill. New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers. This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire. This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required. Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail. St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet. To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.' Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history. Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

Probe wanted into tobacco firms' policy influence
Probe wanted into tobacco firms' policy influence

Otago Daily Times

time01-08-2025

  • Otago Daily Times

Probe wanted into tobacco firms' policy influence

Associate Health Minister Casey Costello. Photo: RNZ Following fresh revelations the government has extended a 50% tax cut on heated tobacco products (HTPs) for two more years, health experts across the country are ramping up calls for an independent public inquiry into the tobacco industry's influence on policy. The tax break was introduced last year — against the advice of government officials. The extension comes hot on the heels of last week's allegations the New Zealand First party has been colluding with tobacco giant Philip Morris. It also comes after NZ First list MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes and creating a smoke-free generation by banning sales to those born after 2009. Health Coalition Aotearoa is calling for a public inquiry into tobacco industry influence and is also calling for the prime minister to reassign the tobacco and vaping portfolio away from NZ First. A petition has also been launched by Vape-Free Kids NZ, calling on the prime minister to strip the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First. Coalition spokeswoman and University of Otago researcher Dr Jude Ball said the heated tobacco products tax break and the recent extension pointed to interventions by tobacco giant Philip Morris, which has a monopoly on heated tobacco products in New Zealand. "It's a poor use of taxpayer dollars at a time when our health system is already stretched," she said. Labour Party list MP and health spokeswoman Ayesha Verrall has been telling media the tax break would be worth $300million to big tobacco. In Parliament this week, NZ First leader Winston Peters denied there was a tax break for HTPs. In 2023, the tax balance sheet for those alternatives was just $6m, and none of that money went to big tobacco, he said. "What Verrall fails to mention, which she knows to be a fact, is that the figure of $216m — now, apparently, $300m in her quotes — includes the revenue lost from people who have quit smoking cigarettes. "They no longer pay the excessive tax on cigarettes, and therefore the government doesn't have that revenue on the balance sheet. "Any person out there with an ounce of common sense can see that going from $6m to, now, $300m overnight is an outright lie that is being perpetuated continuously and repeated continuously by a certain few in the media." He said New Zealand was now No 2 in the world for the lowest smoking rates. "Our smoke-free policy — which is backed by Prof Bob Beaglehole from ASH — is working, and that's a fact." He said the government was doing everything it could to get the last few remaining "hardcore smokers" off cigarettes and on to alternatives, and those alternatives needed to be more affordable and more accessible. However, Dr Ball said there was no evidence heated tobacco products helped people stop smoking, or that they were significantly less harmful than cigarettes. "Yet the government, despite committing to a one-year trial, have extended the tax cut by two more years. "This decision is favourable to the tobacco industry, but not beneficial to public health. "This latest decision adds to a worrying trend of government policy decisions that align with tobacco company interests." She said the government's approach to evaluating if heated tobacco products helped people quit smoking was unclear. "It is highly unusual for a government to run a trial like this which, by cutting a tax on HTPs, helps the sole seller of heated tobacco products to increase their product sales. "Especially if there is no evidence that product helps people to quit cigarettes. "Tobacco giant Phillip Morris are the sole beneficiaries of this tax cut."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store