Fallout over number of women on federal opposition front bench
In Australia the federal opposition is vowing to rebuild and better represent the expectations of more Australians -- after copping a drubbing at the recent election. But the coalition's first female leader Sussan Ley is already under fire for reducing the number of senior women on her front bench. Our correspondent Nick Grimm joins us.
Tags:
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
NZ's pause on funding is 'patronising'
Pacific politics 18 minutes ago Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown says pausing nearly 20 million dollars in development assistance is "patronising" and "inconsistent with modern partnership".
RNZ News
20 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mark Brown slams New Zealand for its 'patronising approach' over China deal
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown Photo: Tiana Haxton Pausing nearly $20 million in development assistance is "patronising" and "inconsistent with modern partnership", Prime Minister Mark Brown has told the Cook Islands parliament. New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters has paused $18.2 million in development assistance to the Cook Islands due to a lack of consultation regarding a partnership agreement and other deals signed with Beijing earlier this year. The pause includes $10 million in core sector support, which represents four percent of the country's budget. Brown said on Thursday or Wednesday local time the money would have been used for health, education and tourism marketing. "The relationship between the Cook Islands and New Zealand is defined by partnership, not paternalism. Decisions to unilaterally pause core sector support reflect a patronising approach, inconsistent with modern partnership," Brown said in his parliament on Friday (Thursday, Cook Islands time). The 2001 Joint Centenary Declaration signed between the two nations requires them to consult each other on defence and security, which Peters said had not been lived up to. But Brown said the declaration is "explicitly clear" that the Cook Islands can enter into international agreements in its own right. "Where we are finding our divergence of views is in the provision relating to the consultation obligations and rights of both parties to the declaration. "We are committed to addressing this urgently. That is why we agreed to New Zealand's proposal to establish a formal dialogue mechanism to discuss the agreements and their implementation." Brown said there had been two meetings so far - one in April and May. "It is disappointing that political commentary from within New Zealand has come at a time when official dialogue continues. Such commentary undermines genuine and concerted efforts by our senior officials to mend the erosion of trust and confidence that, to be clear, has been experienced on both sides," he said. RNZ Pacific reached out to Peters' office for a response on Brown's comments. A spokesperson for Peters said they would make no further comment and stand by the statements issued Thursday. In parliament, on Thursday, Brown suggested a double standard from New Zealand and that he was "not privy to or consulted on" agreements New Zealand may enter into with China. Brown said he was surprised by the timing of the announcement. "Especially Mr Speaker in light of the fact our officials have been in discussions with New Zealand officials to address the areas of concern that they have over our engagements in the agreements that we signed with China." Peters previously said the Cook Islands government was informed of the funding pause on 4 June. He also said it had nothing to do with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon being in China. Brown said he was sure Luxon would ensure good outcomes for the people of the realm of New Zealand on the back of the Cook Islands state visit and "the goodwill that we've generated with the People's Republic of China". "I have full trust that Prime Minister Luxon has entered into agreements with China that will pose no security threats to the people of the Cook Islands. "Of course, not being privy to or not being consulted on any agreements that New Zealand may enter into with China." The Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand and governs its own affairs. But New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief, and defence. Former Cook Islands deputy prime minister and prominent lawyer Norman George said Brown "should go on his knees and beg for forgiveness because you can't rely on China". "[The aid pause] is absolutely a fair thing to do because our Prime Minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down." But not everyone agrees. Rarotongan artist Tim Buchanan said Peters is being a bully. "It's like he's taken a page out of Donald Trump's playbook using money to coerce his friends," Buchanan said. "What is it exactly do you want from us Winston? What do you expect us to be doing to appease you." Buchanan said it has been a long road for the Cook Islands to get where it is now, and it seemed New Zealand wanted to knock the country back down.
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever. How can we make sense of this?
By Ian Lovering* of International relations academic Ian Lovering delves into some of the history and social structures at play behind decisions about the national budget. Photo: RNZ Analysis : Recent controversies over New Zealand's Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch programme have revolved around the apparent shortcomings of the food and its delivery. Stories of inedible meals , scalding packaging and general waste have dominated headlines. But the story is also a window into the wider debate about the politics of "fiscal responsibility" and austerity politics . As part of the mission to "cut waste" in government spending, ACT leader and Associate Education Minister David Seymour replaced the school-based scheme with a centralised programme run by a catering corporation. The result was said to have delivered "saving for taxpayers" of $130 million - in line with the government's overall drive for efficiency and cost cutting. While Finance Minister Nicola Willis dislikes the term "austerity", her May budget cut the government's operating allowance in half , to $1.3 billion. This came on top of Budget cuts last year of around $4 billion. Similar policy doctrines have been subscribed to by governments of all political persuasions for decades. As economic growth (and the tax revenue it brings) has been harder for OECD countries to achieve over the past 50 years, governments have looked to make savings. What is strange, though, is that despite decades of austerity policies reducing welfare and outsourcing public services to the most competitive corporate bidder, state spending has kept increasing. New Zealand's public expense as a percentage of GDP increased from 25.9 percent in 1972 to 35.9 percent in 2022. And this wasn't unusual. The OECD as a whole saw an increase from 18.9 percent in 1972 to 29.9 percent in 2022. How can we make sense of so-called austerity when, despite decades of cost cutting, governments spend more than ever? In a recent paper , I argued that the politics of austerity is not only about how much governments spend. It is also about who gets to decide how public money is used. Austerity sounds like it is about spending less, finding efficiencies or living within your means. But ever rising budgets mean it is about more than that. In particular, austerity is shaped by a centralising system that locks in corporate and bureaucratic control over public expenditure, while locking out people and communities affected by spending decisions. In other words, austerity is about democracy as much as economics. We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism - democracy as much as economics. We typically turn to the ideology of neoliberalism - "Rogernomics" being the New Zealand variant - to explain the history of this. The familiar story is of a revolutionary clique taking over a bloated postwar state, reorienting it towards the global market, and making it run more like a business. Depending on your political persuasion, the contradiction of austerity's growing cost reflects either the short-sightedness of market utopianism or the stubbornness of the public sector to reform. But while the 1980s neoliberal revolution was important, the roots of austerity's managerial dimension go back further. And it was shaped less by a concern that spending was too high, and more by a desire to centralise control over a growing budget. Godfather of 'rational' budgeting: US Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara (right), with US president Lyndon B Johnson (centre), in a Cabinet meeting, in 1968. Photo: Yoichi Okamoto - Public Domain Many of the managerial techniques that have arrived in the public sector over the austerity years - such as results-based pay, corporate contracting, performance management or evaluation culture - have their origins in a budgetary revolution that took place in the 1960s at the US Department of Defence. In the early 1960s, Defence Secretary Robert McNamara was frustrated with being nominally in charge of budgeting but having to mediate between the seemingly arbitrary demands of military leaders for more tanks, submarines or missiles. In response, he called on the RAND Corporation, a US think tank and consultancy, to remake the Defence Department's budgetary process to give the secretary greater capacity to plan. The outcome was called the Planning Programming Budgeting System . Its goal was to create a "rational" budget where policy objectives were clearly specified in quantified terms, the possible means to achieve them were fully costed, and performance indicators measuring progress were able to be reviewed. This approach might have made sense for strategic military purposes. But what happens when you apply the same logic to planning public spending in healthcare, education, housing - or school lunches? The past 50 years have largely been a process of finding out. What began as a set of techniques to help McNamara get control of military spending gradually diffused into social policy . These ideas travelled from the US and came to be known as the " New Public Management " framework that transformed state sectors all over the world. Dramatic moments of spending cuts - such as the 1991 " Mother of all Budgets " in New Zealand or Elon Musk's recent DOGE crusade in the US - stand out as major exercises in austerity. And fiscal responsibility is a firmly held conviction within mainstream political thinking. Nevertheless, government spending has become a major component of OECD economies. If we are to make sense of austerity in this world of permanent mass expenditure, we need a broader idea of what public spending is about. Budgets are classically thought to do three things. For economists, they are a tool of macroeconomic stabilisation: if growth goes down, "automatic stabilisers" inject public money into the economy to pick it back up. For social reformers, the budget is a means of progressively redistributing resources through tax and welfare systems. For accountants, the budget is a means of cost accountability: it holds a record of public spending and signals a society's future commitments. But budgeting as described here also fulfils a fourth function - managerial planning. Decades of reform have made a significant portion of the state budget a managerial instrument for the pursuit of policy objectives. From this perspective, underlying common austerity rhetoric about eliminating waste, or achieving value for money, is a deeper political struggle over who decides how that public money is used. To return to New Zealand's school lunch programme, any savings achieved should not distract from the more significant democratic question of who should plan school lunches - and public spending more broadly. Should it be the chief executives of corporatised public organisations and outsourced conglomerates managing to KPIs on nutritional values and price per meal, serving the directives of government ministers? Or should it be those cooking, serving and eating the lunches? * Ian Lovering is a lecturer in international relations, at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington. This story was originally published on The Conversation .
