Labour defends raising c-word column in House
Labour has rejected the idea that it was a poor political judgment to reference a column using the c-word in connection to female ministers overhauling the pay equity scheme in Parliament.
The controversial legislation, passed under urgency last week, raises the threshold for proving work has been historically undervalued when making a pay equity claim. The law is retrospective, cancelling 33 current claims affecting 150,000 female workers which would have to be restarted.
Workplace Minister Brooke van Velden last week said the changes would save the Crown money. Opponents say it will make it harder for women in female dominated industries to make a claim.
Labour's Jan Tinetti asked van Velden a question about the column during Parliament's Question Time yesterday, to which van Velden dropped the c-word in protest over the slur being used.
Van Velden has defended the use of the word, blaming Labour for introducing the column in the first place.
"I think it's really important that I shone a light on the misogyny that Labour actually did bring into the House. They brought it here, I responded."
But Tinetti rejected that, saying there was nothing in the quote she referenced in her question that brought misogyny into the House.
"I deliberately went through that to find the quote that would mention the economic backhander."
It was pointed out to Tinetti that the column in question used the c-word, "that c-word I would never use," she said.
"That doesn't mean to say that people's emotions aren't riled by the fact there's been choices made here with the Budget, and future pay cuts have been made to women.
"This has got people very uptight and very angry, and emotions have risen."
She rejected the notion Labour had used poor political judgment by referencing the column, and said the party was having a discussion around misogyny, as well as women taking money off other women in "future pay cuts."
The coalition has criticised Labour for not calling out the column itself, with Finance Minister Nicola Willis taking aim at party leader Chris Hipkins directly for his past position of believing men should speak out against gendered abuse.
Hipkins said newspapers make editorial judgments about what they are and aren't willing to publish, "and that's a question for the editors and the people writing that material".
"Given the opportunity to make that exact statement, he did not; instead, he suddenly discovered free speech, and my view is that actually the standard you walk past is the standard you accept," Willis said.
NZ First MP Shane Jones said it had been the "most extraordinary day of language in the House" and discussion carried over into General Debate later in the afternoon.
Chris Bishop said the c-word had been "thrown around a bit" in the last week.
"I want to read out some c-words that I think apply to the Labour opposition: callous, cruel and cowardly."
He also said the "double standards" and "misleading statements" put out by the Labour Party over the last week were "cruel".
"Because this debate all started because of the actions the government took when it comes to equal pay, and we have heard all sorts of nonsense from the Opposition."
Hipkins took aim at Bishop too for "jumping on his high horse" and saying Labour needed to do better.
"I can only say I hope he didn't injure himself as he fell off his high horse when it was flying at breakneck speed in the wrong direction.
"Because at the same time he was saying we needed to do better, his own party was posting artificial intelligence-generated images of me when he was saying that we needed to 'raise the tone' of the debate."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
Defence Heads Face Scrutiny Week Hearing, Promise To Be Fiscally Responsible
Defence heads have assured politicians their huge new budget takes into account soldiers actually having to fire their weapons. They fronted up to an even-tempered scrutiny week hearing with MPs at Parliament on Thursday afternoon. Greens MP Lawrence Xu-Nan asked whether the budget boost of $9 billion new spending over four years allowed for buying the likes of replacement Javelin missiles, which cost $400,000 each. Defence secretary Brook Barrington responded that the increased budget meant troops could now move past the approach from the last 50 years of being only partly equipped. "The defence force is actually being provided with funding to ensure that, if we upgrade the capabilty, we are also able to shoot things with it," he said. Along with defence force Chief Air Marshal Tony Davies, Barrington laid out a raft of measures they said would enable them to buy weapons and other systems faster and smarter. "The demand queue is growing," Barrington said. "The longer it takes us to lodge an order, someone else has got their place in the queue before us and some of this stuff takes three years. "You know, you lose your place in the queue... and you're losing time." They felt a sense of urgency, but also had to ensure quality thresholds were set, so that in 3-4 years he was not up before MPs again being told, "We knew we couldn't trust you folk to bloody get your way out of a paper bag", he said. "We've got to find a sweet spot between rigour, confidence and pace." He added defence had already met with 280 people from 174 companies, both last month and this month, and that an industry strategy would be put out soon. They would be fiscally responsible with the billions of taxpayer money, Davies said. To accelerate, they would drop the old approach of trying to get 30 years of life from gear and retreading it, and instead, look at getting a "minimum viable product" quickly out to the field, he said. "Simple... quick... lean." On the personnel front, they had to rebuild forces, he said. The budget and plan had "buoyed" personnel, but their thinned-back ranks still constrained how much notice they needed to deploy, how long they could deploy for and whether they could mount multiple operations. Personnel turnover had fallen to less than seven percent, but vacancy rates in February were about 30 percent, an Official Information Act request (OIA) showed. The army was short 1500 people, Air Force 660 and navy 630. Defence was "over-training" people to hit 100 percent, when it did not need to, so was reviewing how to speed training up, Davies said. The 15-year plan was to add 20 percent to combat forces - or 2500 people - and the only way to do that currently was to cut civilian jobs down, he said. "At the moment, we've got ships tied up that can't go to sea, because we haven't got the sailors. We've got people that are going on their fifth deployment overseas, because we don't have the number of soldiers. "We've got Joint Force headquarters out at Trentham with watchfloors that can't be filled, because we haven't got the uniformed people with those skills. "We need those. The money is tight, still, even with uplifts." An OIA response showed that, in March, a hefty 313 positions were vacant at Joint Defence Services, far more than in other sections. Defence Minister Judith Collins said the point was to be able to defend against anybody who "threatened our people, or our assets". "Our people are not going to have to wave a white flag anymore. They are going to be able to get out there and protect themselves." She said she had told "prime" multinational defence contractors their best bet for getting a share of the business was to involve New Zealand firms. The small firms would not be written "out of the equation", Barrington said. He added the business cases for two very large projects - replacing the 757s and the maritime helicopters - were well advanced. Other business cases would be made short and sharp. The fleet renewal planning was by far the biggest job, but the budget gave the ministry a couple of million dollars extra for teams to do that. "What happens in two years, if the world situation's got worse and we need to step it up again?" Davies said. "How are we going to accelerate our capability acquisition process. It might be that we need to double our efforts there, so we are constantly looking at ways to fine tune it." The budget set aside $155m over four years for new military allowances for deployments and hundreds of millions for more operations.
Newsroom
14 hours ago
- Newsroom
Seymour's ‘light up' message alarms tobacco researchers
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour's comments to a London audience calling smokers 'fiscal heroes' – and declaring people should 'light up' to save their government's balance sheet – are reprehensible and make light of addiction, tobacco researchers say. Seymour largely stands by his remarks, arguing smokers are a net economic positive through tobacco tax and reduced superannuation from early deaths – but has conceded he was wrong to describe as 'quite evil' the Labour government's plan to create a smokefree generation. Early in its term, the coalition Government sparked controversy by repealing a law that would have banned the sale of tobacco to anyone born after January 1, 2009 and dramatically reduced both the number of outlets able to sell tobacco and the nicotine levels in cigarettes. Seymour spoke about the decision following a speech to the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal think tank based in London, during a visit to the UK this month. Asked about the smokefree generation concept, which has been taken up by the British government, Seymour said the New Zealand policy had been 'quite evil, in a way' and described smokers as 'fiscal heroes'. 'If you want to save your country's balance sheet, light up, because … lots of excise tax, no pension – I mean, you're a hero,' he said to laughter from the audience. Seymour told Newsroom his remarks were based on arguments he made before about the role of the Government when it came to smoking. 'I'm not seriously suggesting that we should encourage people to smoke to save the Government money. It's clearly an absurd statement, but you do have to have a bit of a sense of humour in this life, otherwise it would be too dull.' The state should make sure the public was aware of the dangers of smoking, while stopping smokers from doing harm to others (such as through second-hand smoke) and ensuring they did not impose financial costs on others. 'As far as I can tell, that condition is well and truly satisfied: I mean, the Government gets $2 billion of tax revenue from about, what is it now, 8 percent of the population?' (The Customs Service collected $1.5b in tobacco excise and equivalent duties in 2023/24, while that year's NZ Health Survey reported a daily smoking rate of 6.9 percent.) Seymour said it was 'just a sad fact' that smokers were also likely to die younger, reducing the amount of superannuation they collected, while he was unconvinced their healthcare costs would be markedly higher than those who died of other illnesses. 'If anything, smokers are probably saving other citizens money.' However, he backtracked on his suggestion the last Government's smokefree generation plans were 'quite evil', saying: 'I'm not sure that was the right word, on reflection. 'I certainly think the idea that, in 30 years' time, someone's going to have to prove that they're 49 rather than 47 does seem draconian – it seems almost a bit of an Orwellian situation.' While the Adam Smith Institute's event page billed Seymour as the Deputy Prime Minister, he said his speech was delivered in a private capacity rather than on behalf of the Government, while he had not used taxpayer money for his travel (he also confirmed the Institute did not cover any of his costs). Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall says the last Labour government's smokefree policy was fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds. Photo: Marc Daalder Labour Party health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall told Newsroom the minister's remarks showed the Government had the wrong priorities when it came to its smokefree policy. 'They are prioritising balancing the books on the misery done to smokers due to the harms of tobacco.' Verrall said there was clear evidence of tobacco's cost to the health system, and the last government's smokefree generation policy had been 'fundamentally based on humanitarian grounds'. 'This is an addictive product: it is unique in that it kills half the people who use it. It's not like the more nuanced debates we have about … social media for kids.' University of Otago associate professor Andrew Waa told Newsroom Seymour's 'perverse' arguments were further evidence of the Government placing tobacco tax revenue over other concerns. 'It's literally blood money: it's money that the Government taxes on a deadly product, and yet they're still treating it as a profit margin for them.' Waa said the minister's comments ignored the social costs of tobacco, and would only help an industry 'intent on exploiting addiction at whatever cost'. 'I don't know if it's naive, or if it's [his] ideology that it's all personal choice – there's no choice when it comes to smoking some of these things. 'There's a reason why certain communities are more likely to smoke, because they get tobacco products shoved in their face all the time; by the time they decide to think that they don't wanna use the stuff, it's too late.' Janet Hoek, the co-director of tobacco control research partnership ASPIRE Aotearoa, told Newsroom that the comments were 'really ridiculous and reprehensible'. 'It just seems incredibly disappointing that Mr Seymour apparently thinks it's amusing to suggest that addiction, and early and often painful death, are a good way to generate government revenue.' Hoek said the environmental and productivity costs associated with smoking also needed to be taken into account, as did the social harm done to communities when their loved ones died prematurely. While some politicians dismissed public health experts as 'muppets … living in ivory towers', the suggestion that smokers were making an informed choice was itself out of touch with reality.
Otago Daily Times
18 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Arrest after woman found dead in Tūrangi
Labour has overtaken National as the party New Zealanders consider most able to handle the cost of living, according to the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor survey.
