Latest news with #NZGovernment
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
'Where was the care of thought?': Greens criticise ministers over pay equity advice
Teanau Tuiono. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Government ministers did not get advice on what the changes to pay equity would mean for specific claims in their portfolios, ahead of the legislation that would discontinue the claims being introduced. The Green Party said it is another example of the lack of consultation over the changes, with thousands of workers blindsided by the government. But the government maintains it made the changes to deliver clarity and certainty to workers, and the changes will improve the design and overall process for raising and resolving claims. Thirty-three unsettled claims were halted by the changes passed through Parliament last month, and will need to start again under the new threshholds, due to the legislation applying retrospectively. Review clauses under existing settled claims have also become unenforceable. Affected workers and the wider public were not consulted on the changes ahead of their announcement, there was no Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill, and with the legislation going through under urgency there was no opportunity for a select committee process. Through written questions, the Greens' workplace relations and safety spokesperson Teanau Tuiono asked ministers what advice they received prior to the introduction of the legislation, about specific claims under their portfolio coverage. Tuiono sent the questions to: Brown, Collins, Doocey, and Upston told Tuiono that advice they receive is available on their relevant ministry's or agency's website, but they did not refer to pay equity at all in their responses. Seymour said in his capacity as an associate minister, he had not received advice, but as a Cabinet minister participated in Cabinet discussions on pay equity. Chhour, Mitchell, Potaka, Reti, Simmonds, Stanford, and Watts confirmed they had not received advice related to specific claims. Grigg told Tuiono the changes "do not halt claims," and claims can still be raised "in a manner that is more robust, more sustainable, and more workable to address sex-based discrimination in the workplace." She said she was involved in conversations about the legislation, including policy discussions, and consultation on the Cabinet paper where advice was provided by officials. Stanford's response said the advice she received was regarding policy changes to address historical sex-based discrimination for women overall, and was "not limited" to particular sectors or claims. "This government is committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace," she wrote. Tuiono said the ministers' responses showed the government had not shown any thought towards the impact the changes would have on the thousands of workers going through a claim. "I thought there would at least be some sort of analysis being done by each of those ministers to determine 'this impacts workers within my portfolio area, what does that actually mean?' But none of that has been done, they've just discarded people's roles and jobs and treated them with the utmost disrespect," he said. "Where was the thought? Where was the care of thought for the impact on these people as well? Why was there no analysis done on what the ongoing impacts would be?" The Public Service Association's national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said it showed arrogance in developing the changes. "This government promised evidence-based policy, but is not even interested in seeking the views of their own agencies when coming after pay equity," she said. Fitzsimons said it was ironic, given the ACT Party's principles around regulatory standards. "It is hypocritical from the ACT Party to introduce a Regulatory Standards Bill which includes elements of consultation better than they've done when it comes to New Zealand women and pay equity." Since making the announcement last month, the government has defended the lack of consultation, and has been at pains to stress the changes do not get rid of equal pay or pay parity. On Sunday, the Prime Minister again defended the approach. "We moved very quickly, under urgency. We could have done it a different way... and put a lot of people and claimants into limbo for some time. We didn't think that was fair," Christopher Luxon said. "We think we need one system, not two systems... you can argue if you've got a different view on that, but we made a decision that we wanted clarity and we wanted certainty, and that's why we did it the way we did it." Van Velden, the minister who introduced the legislation, told RNZ the changes were not in response to any particular sector or claim that was underway. Brooke van Velden. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "This is a policy that I said at the start of my term I was interested in pursuing. It became really clear this year that my Cabinet colleagues wanted me to work on this as quickly as I could. I am a team player and so I did my job," she said. "The ACT Party would love strong regulatory standards that is core to who we are as a party, but I was asked by my Cabinet colleagues to do this and I did it for the government." In her responses to Tuiono, van Velden gave him a list of the formal advice she had received on pay equity from February to April, including reports from Treasury, the Public Service Commission, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. They included papers on possible legislative approaches and key questions, as well as the Cabinet papers. She also confirmed neither she nor her office had communicated with any employer parties or their representatives regarding the changes, and no lobbyists or consultants were consulted. But she said officials did consult other officials in the public service in the development of the changes, including some in their capacity as employers, referring to a Reviewing Policy Settings Cabinet paper. The paper was developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commission. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Crown Law Office were consulted on the paper, while the Ministry of Education and Health New Zealand were consulted on the proposals. The paper also explained why van Velden did not make any announcements on the changes until the bill was introduced, saying she was "cognisant" of the risk announcing the changes before the bill could prompt pay equity claims being filed and potentially determined by the Employment Relations Authority under the then-existing Act. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
03-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Climate change scientists accuse government of 'ignoring scientific evidence'
Climate change scientists have written an open letter to Christopher Luxon warning that New Zealand government plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets will jeopardise existing agreements. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi More than 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, accusing the government of "ignoring scientific evidence" and urging it to "deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees". The open letter warns the New Zealand government that plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets based on a goal of causing ''no additional warming" will jeopardise New Zealand's commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Global Methane Pledge. The 26 scientists from different countries say adopting targets consistent with no additional warming implies that current methane emissions levels are acceptable when they are not. "Setting a 'no additional warming' target is to say that the wildfires in America, drought in Africa, floods across Europe, bushfires in Australia, increasing food insecurity and disease, and much more to come are all fine and acceptable, signatory Paul Behrens, global professor of environmental change at Oxford University said in a statement sent to RNZ. "The irony is that agriculture, one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, has many large, vested interests that resist and lobby against the very changes and just transitions needed to avoid those impacts," he said. Another scientist behind the letter was quoted prominently in UK newspaper the Financial Times saying the New Zealand government's approach was an "accounting trick" designed to hide the impact of agriculture in rich countries with big farming sectors, namely Ireland and New Zealand. Luxon dismissed the letter, saying academics "should send their letters to other countries" and he was not going to penalise New Zealand farmers because they were already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita methane rates in the world because of its farming exports, as well as high per capita carbon emissions. Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target so that, rather than aiming to reduce global heating from livestock, it would aim to keep them the same, a target known as "no additional warming". The current target of 24-47 percent by 2050 already reflects the fact that methane is shorter lived at heating the planet than carbon dioxide, but farming groups says it is too high - and the current government appears receptive. Federated Farmers says the current target is unscientific, and the government appointed a panel to conduct a "scientific review" to the side of its independent Climate Change Commission. Lowering the target would fly in the face of advice from the commission, which says reductions of 35-47 percent are needed for New Zealand to deliver on its commitments under the Paris Agreement. Signatory to the letter Professor Drew Schindel is a professor of climate science at Duke University in the US and chair of the 2021 UNEP Global Methane Assessment. "The New Zealand government is setting a dangerous precedent," he said. "Adopting a goal of no additional warming means New Zealand would allow agri-methane emissions to continue at current high levels instead of using the solutions we have available to cut them. "Agriculture is the biggest source of methane from human activity - we can't afford for New Zealand or any other government to exempt it from climate action," he said in a statement sent to RNZ. Shindell told the Financial Times that using the New Zealand government's approach: "If you're a rich farmer that happens to have a lot of cows, then you can keep those cows forever" which "penalises anybody who's not already a big player in agriculture", including "poor farmers in Africa that are trying to feed a growing population". Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target. Photo: Supplied The letter was prompted by a powerful push by agriculture lobby groups here and overseas for developed countries to base their climate targets on an alternative method for calculating methane's climate impact, which estimates its contribution to warming based on how emissions are changing relative to a baseline. Proponents argue the newer method, known as global warming potential star (GWP*), better reflects methane's short-lived nature in the atmosphere compared to the long-lasting effects of carbon dioxide and should replace the traditional method of averaging climate impacts over 100 years. Experts say both methods are scientifically valid and can be used to reveal different things. The controversy is over using GWP* to argue that farming sectors in wealthy countries do not have to reduce their climate impacts. The letter argues using GWP* to justify not reducing the impact of farming is incompatible with global efforts to limit heating to between 1.5 and 2C. "It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'," Behrens told the Financial Times . The government's science review of New Zealand's methane target has been dismissed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as a purely political exercise. Simon Upton has said there is no particular reason why farmers should get to 'keep' today's levels of heating, particularly given farming's climate impact is larger than it was in 1990. Methane has caused most of New Zealand's contribution to heating so far, partly because it acts more quickly than carbon dioxide, front-loading the impact before it tails off. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said Cabinet was still carefully considering its decision on whether to lower the target and to what level. He said he did not take the commentary to heart and "it doesn't stop the direction of travel we are following in undertaking a scientific review". Simon Watts said he remained happy with how the government's review of New Zealand's methane target was progressing. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone He said he remained happy with the context of the review and the expertise of the scientists the government selected for it. The panel established by the government last year concluded a 14 - 24 percent reduction in methane emissions off 2017 levels by 2050 was sufficient to ensure no additional warming from the livestock industry. The review was led by former climate change commissioner and former Fonterra board member Nicola Shadbolt. However the panel was not allowed to comment on whether "no additional warming" was an appropriate target. That decision remains one for Cabinet to make. Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford University's physics department and one of the scientists behind GWP*, agreed it was a political call - telling the Financial Times that governments, not scientists, must decide whether farmers should undo past warming from herd growth. He said he supported separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide, and said traditional approaches to methane overstated the warming impact of keeping emissions the same, and were slow to reflect the impact of raising or lowering methane. Methane is more potent over short periods than carbon dioxide, so raising or lowering it has an immediate strong impact. New Zealand has separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide. The latter needs to fall to net zero by 2050. The open letter comes almost a year to the day after a top Australian climate scientist told RNZ the government's goal of 'no added heating' from farming's methane was problematic. Professor Mark Howden , Australasia's top representative on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said taking a "sensible" mid-point from various IPCC pathways, methane would need to fall by roughly 60 percent by 2050 to meet global climate goals, though not all of that reduction needed to come from agriculture. Oil and gas industry leaks are also major contributors to methane production, and are under pressure to fall more rapidly, because they do not contribute to food production. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
09-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Watch live: No new compensation scheme for abuse survivors, more funds for current system
The government has opted against setting up a new compensation scheme for survivors of abuse in state care - in favour of putting more money in the current system. That's despite it being the key recommendation of both the Royal Commission and the Redress Design Group. During November's apology to survivors the Prime Minister committed to a new system that would be more responsive to survivors' needs. "But I want to assure you it is our intention to have a new single redress system operating next year," Christopher Luxon said. The Minister-in-charge, Erica Stanford, has announced this month's Budget will commit $774 million to improve the current redress system and make changes that will endeavour to "prevent, identify, and respond to abuse in the future". Erica Stanford speaking at a press conference on Wednesday. Photo: Samuel Rillstone / RNZ On the decision to not set up a new entity, Stanford said the government was faced with a "difficult choice". "Do we spend more time and money on setting up a new scheme, or do we provide more to survivors now through the current redress process? "For Budget 25 we have prioritised improving the current system as quickly as possible for survivors and investing in changes that have a direct impact for them," Stanford said. The Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry found at least 200,000 people had been abused , and even more neglected, by the state and faith-based institutions since 1950. Its final report, released last July, outlined 138 recommendations to right the wrongs of the past and to ensure the safety of every child, young person and adult in care today. In 2021, the inquiry made 95 recommendations for establishing an independent, fair and effective redress scheme for all survivors of abuse in state and faith-based care with existing schemes to be phased out. During November's apology to survivors, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced $32 million to support existing schemes while the coalition ironed out details of the new redress system. On Friday Stanford confirmed a number of additions to the redress system over the next year: The $774m set aside in the Budget will also put investment into the wider care system over the next fours year, including: Stanford said there would also be funding for the "continuation of the Survivor Experiences Service who provide an important survivor-led service, better record keeping and access to records, and for an independent review of the changes to the redress system in 2027". "Cabinet has also decided that for new claims from survivors who are also serious sexual and/or violent offenders who have been sentenced to five years or more in prison a new process will apply. "Modelled on similar approaches in Australia and Scotland, this will involve an independent decision maker who will need to assure themselves that a redress payment would not bring the scheme into disrepute," Stanford said. Legislation establishing this will be introduced later this year, and a ministerial advisory group of survivors and advocates will be set up in the coming months to provide advice to ministers on the government's response. "Redress decisions, at this point, do not include claims that currently sit with school boards, faith-based organisations, or other non-state providers. The Government will be receiving further advice on this later this year," Stanford said. Where to get help: Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason. Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357 Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO (24/7). This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends. Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 (24/7) or text 4202 Samaritans: 0800 726 666 (24/7) Youthline: 0800 376 633 (24/7) or free text 234 (8am-12am), or email talk@ What's Up: free counselling for 5 to 19 years old, online chat 11am-10.30pm 7days/week or free phone 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787 11am-11pm Asian Family Services: 0800 862 342 Monday to Friday 9am to 8pm or text 832 Monday to Friday 9am - 5pm. Languages spoken: Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi and English. Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254 Healthline: 0800 611 116 Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155 OUTLine: 0800 688 5463 (6pm-9pm) If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
08-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Oral Questions for Thursday 8 May 2025
Questions to Ministers Hon CARMEL SEPULONI to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her answer to oral question No. 4 yesterday, in relation to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, that "I always advocate for women, and I have been consulted on and advised on this legislation from the outset"; if so, on what date was she first consulted regarding the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety's Cabinet paper reviewing pay equity policy settings? SUZE REDMAYNE to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Government's fiscal position? Hon BARBARA EDMONDS to the Minister of Finance: When did she first consider the pay equity changes for inclusion in Budget 2025, and what modelling did she receive, if any, on the number of workers likely to be affected by the Equal Pay Amendment Bill? KAHURANGI CARTER to the Minister for Children: E tautoko ana ia i ana korero me ana mahi katoa? Does she stand by all of her statements and actions? LAURA McCLURE to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding key performance indicators for Oranga Tamariki? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to oral question No. 11 on 6 May 2025? GRANT McCALLUM to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, "our priority is building a strong economy to reduce the cost of living, support more people into work and lift incomes for women to help them and their families out of hardship"; if so, how does the Equal Pay Amendment Bill contribute to lifting the incomes of women? SAM UFFINDELL to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made to boost New Zealand as an international travel destination? LAN PHAM to the Minister for the Environment: Does she consider that she has been a strong advocate for environmental protection in the Government's decisions? RYAN HAMILTON to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What updates can he provide on New Zealand Music Month? Hon JAN TINETTI to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that "women should be paid for their work"; if so, does she consider that the Equal Pay Amendment Bill will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of women to be paid fairly for their work? To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
