Like Dame Ann Salmond, as an older woman I am incandescent with rage. Women stood together on this issue 50 years ago and in less than one day we have been returned to the same old, same old. Excellent questions probing lack of transparency and the necessary required analysis. Even if not sufficiently answered, the questions prove their points all the more strongly. Women - and the men who support women in the fight for equity - MUST keep this issue alive and central into the 2026 election. The hypocrisy and complicity - and in many cases woeful ignorance - of coalition MPs must be outed along with the weak leadership and lack of moral compass displayed by an absent Prime Minister. It is an issue that crosses political divides and has the power to ensure a change of government. Pay equity is a matter of fundamental human rights in a modern democratic country that ironically depends on the paid, underpaid, and unpaid work of women.
The big question remains as to how we might turn the incandescent rage into actions that facilitate meaningful change. Signing the petition and forwarding it to everyone we possibly can is a start, but I fear not enough. Already the coalition has signaled its recognition that they’ve stood on a landmine by trying to switch the narrative yesterday to banning under 16yr olds from social media and the return of a golden oldie Crusher Collins move by Chris Bishop on boy racer cars. Clearly the beating of the populist drums of law and order to drown out the pay equity debacle. Women of all ages have immense power, but somehow we need to mobilize it with unwavering resolve to keep the undemocratic destruction of pay equity centre front. Apart from the gender discrimination issue, as Craig points out in his excellent piece, this is about shockingly inept legislation actioned under urgency. It stretches beyond feminist outrage to the very principles of a fair democracy.
Excellent work, Craig. I hope Labour, the Greens and TPM are all raking notes and will div up between them for oral questions but also written questions that don't have the protection of the (useless) speaker to dodge answering.
I was thinking exactly that about Parliamentary Written Questions. I recall some questions similar to some of Craig's were asked by the opposition during the Bill debate, and also during Questions Time this week. But of course, they we answered with snipes, snickers, and evasion rather than straight answers.
Excellent questions. I predict that if asked the coalition will avoid them but their avoidance is an answer, showing that this must be a one-term government.
🤔⁉️ I find it fascinating that in a discussion about this latest evidence of govt with neither a heart nor a brain, Labour could be seen as not a "plausible alternative" ⁉️ Whatever their faults, & every party has them, they are head & shoulders above all 3 coalition partners in almost every policy area that impacts both people & our land, and by all trackable measures have proven to be better economic managers than have National-led govts in historic & recent terms 🤷
The option to worry about is that people just don't vote because Labour continues to offer somewhat more humane neoliberalism rather than a genuine transformation - in other words it offers a continuation of the gst off food thinking.
What's next? Are they going to deny women the vote? I note they're already messing with voter registration rules which will make it harder to vote, similar to yank land. Is this the beginning of only land owners being permitted to vote? Are we one generation away from feudalism ???
Again and again the current government coalition proves itself unfit to govern. They appear to be taking instructions and directives from the New Initiative and union busting business owners. Truly ashamed to witness such blatant abuse of power.
Superb Craig. You wouldn't believe the ignorance and how some have seized onto BvV's librarian example to defend the infensible. Or perhaps you would. They almost need a cartoon about how pay equity works ; including Brooke and Nicola and every MP in the Coalition.
These pull backs on pay equality/equity have been regularly occurring events over the past 35 years plus. That is almost a working lifetime. Is it any wonder we now have stats indicating increasing poverty amongst elderly women?
The govt says it wants us to "age in place" because even with some support services, it is cheaper than moving folk into residential care. My friend with Parkinsons unwillingly moved into residential care recently because, although the ok had been given for her to receive such support, they could not provide staff consistently - she had been left sitting in a lounge chair all night a couple of times. There are not enough people prepared to take on these lowly paid roles. And I am not sure if they get paid for travel etc - they didn't use to anyway. So last week I emailed Costello, minister for elderly, to ask what we older folk could expect if we required home support in the future. She replied that this was not her domain so she had forwarded my query to Van Velden. I have yet to hear from van Velden.
👍💯 - many of us women have already retired with less than our male counterparts because the jobs we did were not paid enough to save much, and once Kiwisaver came matched savings from employers were also less (= employee/employer 4% of $1,000 = $40 whereas 4% of $1,500 = $60 over weeks, months, years of accumulation) I keep assuring an elderly relative he shouldn't worry about selling his home & going into care as long as he can cope along with some home help as for your friend, but worry that this may not be an option due to shortage of workers 🥹
I was an RN for 32 years and now work as a support worker in the community. Yes we do get paid to travel. It wasn't so long ago that sw didn't. Ageing in place is good for some, but not possible for all. And yes, it requires lots more people - mainly women - to do this role that the current government clearly doesn't value
I cannot for the life of me understand why we persist with the use of "Hon." before their names. There is absolutely nothing honorable about any of these people.
They this cowardly coalition Government are complete and utter pricks , they hid their plans to the day before and then repealed the Legislation in one day
Really important questions Craig. Thank you for highlighting the importance of the Regulatory Impact Statement, because with all the coalition MPs crowing about the changes giving extra clarity and fairness, without that analysis, their argument doesn't stack up. This process needed to be completely transparent and inclusive, if they were serious in their claims, and it just hasn't been. Instead it's been another chance for ACT to undermine workers in their pursuit of neoliberal purity.
"Savings to the government... " are irrelevant. Also, (false) neolib right-wing framing.
The NZ government creates the tax credit (aka. NZ$) by fiat. It cannot ever run out of Its own scorepoints, so savings is just not an applicable concept. Net government spending is what funds the tax payers, not the other way around. So while I agree with all the pay equity stuff, your macroeconomics is entirely backwards. If we want to eliminate unemployment and child poverty the government net spending needs to go upwards, and be more equitably distributed.
If we do not want inflation pressure from this spending — to raise up the poorest — then we need to stop issuing Tsy bonds = _basic income schemes, but *only for people who already have money* and in proportion to how much money they already have._
Like tax receipts, the bonds are not a "pay for". No one can swap nz cash for bonds until the government creates the currency in the first place by spending. Government spending is NOT 'like a household', it is completely different in operational and economic impact terms. It is creation of tax credits ex nihilo (you can say: with a hard won vote in Parliament).
Like Dame Ann Salmond, as an older woman I am incandescent with rage. Women stood together on this issue 50 years ago and in less than one day we have been returned to the same old, same old. Excellent questions probing lack of transparency and the necessary required analysis. Even if not sufficiently answered, the questions prove their points all the more strongly. Women - and the men who support women in the fight for equity - MUST keep this issue alive and central into the 2026 election. The hypocrisy and complicity - and in many cases woeful ignorance - of coalition MPs must be outed along with the weak leadership and lack of moral compass displayed by an absent Prime Minister. It is an issue that crosses political divides and has the power to ensure a change of government. Pay equity is a matter of fundamental human rights in a modern democratic country that ironically depends on the paid, underpaid, and unpaid work of women.
I feel your pain Wendy. When you refer to an absent PM are you talking about a physical absence, or the vacuum between his ears
Probably both...!
Such a cowardly action. He's spineless into the bargain.
Hear hear Wendy- beautifully put - I completely support your response!!
The big question remains as to how we might turn the incandescent rage into actions that facilitate meaningful change. Signing the petition and forwarding it to everyone we possibly can is a start, but I fear not enough. Already the coalition has signaled its recognition that they’ve stood on a landmine by trying to switch the narrative yesterday to banning under 16yr olds from social media and the return of a golden oldie Crusher Collins move by Chris Bishop on boy racer cars. Clearly the beating of the populist drums of law and order to drown out the pay equity debacle. Women of all ages have immense power, but somehow we need to mobilize it with unwavering resolve to keep the undemocratic destruction of pay equity centre front. Apart from the gender discrimination issue, as Craig points out in his excellent piece, this is about shockingly inept legislation actioned under urgency. It stretches beyond feminist outrage to the very principles of a fair democracy.
Excellent work, Craig. I hope Labour, the Greens and TPM are all raking notes and will div up between them for oral questions but also written questions that don't have the protection of the (useless) speaker to dodge answering.
I was thinking exactly that about Parliamentary Written Questions. I recall some questions similar to some of Craig's were asked by the opposition during the Bill debate, and also during Questions Time this week. But of course, they we answered with snipes, snickers, and evasion rather than straight answers.
Excellent questions. I predict that if asked the coalition will avoid them but their avoidance is an answer, showing that this must be a one-term government.
A one-term government requires a plausible alternative at election time doesn't it? Not sure Labour is there yet.
🤔⁉️ I find it fascinating that in a discussion about this latest evidence of govt with neither a heart nor a brain, Labour could be seen as not a "plausible alternative" ⁉️ Whatever their faults, & every party has them, they are head & shoulders above all 3 coalition partners in almost every policy area that impacts both people & our land, and by all trackable measures have proven to be better economic managers than have National-led govts in historic & recent terms 🤷
The option to worry about is that people just don't vote because Labour continues to offer somewhat more humane neoliberalism rather than a genuine transformation - in other words it offers a continuation of the gst off food thinking.
What's next? Are they going to deny women the vote? I note they're already messing with voter registration rules which will make it harder to vote, similar to yank land. Is this the beginning of only land owners being permitted to vote? Are we one generation away from feudalism ???
Again and again the current government coalition proves itself unfit to govern. They appear to be taking instructions and directives from the New Initiative and union busting business owners. Truly ashamed to witness such blatant abuse of power.
*New Zealand Initiative*
Superb Craig. You wouldn't believe the ignorance and how some have seized onto BvV's librarian example to defend the infensible. Or perhaps you would. They almost need a cartoon about how pay equity works ; including Brooke and Nicola and every MP in the Coalition.
These pull backs on pay equality/equity have been regularly occurring events over the past 35 years plus. That is almost a working lifetime. Is it any wonder we now have stats indicating increasing poverty amongst elderly women?
The govt says it wants us to "age in place" because even with some support services, it is cheaper than moving folk into residential care. My friend with Parkinsons unwillingly moved into residential care recently because, although the ok had been given for her to receive such support, they could not provide staff consistently - she had been left sitting in a lounge chair all night a couple of times. There are not enough people prepared to take on these lowly paid roles. And I am not sure if they get paid for travel etc - they didn't use to anyway. So last week I emailed Costello, minister for elderly, to ask what we older folk could expect if we required home support in the future. She replied that this was not her domain so she had forwarded my query to Van Velden. I have yet to hear from van Velden.
👍💯 - many of us women have already retired with less than our male counterparts because the jobs we did were not paid enough to save much, and once Kiwisaver came matched savings from employers were also less (= employee/employer 4% of $1,000 = $40 whereas 4% of $1,500 = $60 over weeks, months, years of accumulation) I keep assuring an elderly relative he shouldn't worry about selling his home & going into care as long as he can cope along with some home help as for your friend, but worry that this may not be an option due to shortage of workers 🥹
I was an RN for 32 years and now work as a support worker in the community. Yes we do get paid to travel. It wasn't so long ago that sw didn't. Ageing in place is good for some, but not possible for all. And yes, it requires lots more people - mainly women - to do this role that the current government clearly doesn't value
The failure to respond says it all Liz!
Really good questions. Thank you
I hope Craig submits a form of this to govt as an OIA request
I cannot for the life of me understand why we persist with the use of "Hon." before their names. There is absolutely nothing honorable about any of these people.
They this cowardly coalition Government are complete and utter pricks , they hid their plans to the day before and then repealed the Legislation in one day
Cowards with a capital C
Really important questions Craig. Thank you for highlighting the importance of the Regulatory Impact Statement, because with all the coalition MPs crowing about the changes giving extra clarity and fairness, without that analysis, their argument doesn't stack up. This process needed to be completely transparent and inclusive, if they were serious in their claims, and it just hasn't been. Instead it's been another chance for ACT to undermine workers in their pursuit of neoliberal purity.
Definitely the questions to ask.
On a different topic - is it possible to put links in your substack each time you release another of those really informative 'Locked Out' podcasts?
👍 Relevant questions I hope they are forced to answer, but given how much they gaslight & obfuscate I won't be holding my breath 🤷
"Savings to the government... " are irrelevant. Also, (false) neolib right-wing framing.
The NZ government creates the tax credit (aka. NZ$) by fiat. It cannot ever run out of Its own scorepoints, so savings is just not an applicable concept. Net government spending is what funds the tax payers, not the other way around. So while I agree with all the pay equity stuff, your macroeconomics is entirely backwards. If we want to eliminate unemployment and child poverty the government net spending needs to go upwards, and be more equitably distributed.
If we do not want inflation pressure from this spending — to raise up the poorest — then we need to stop issuing Tsy bonds = _basic income schemes, but *only for people who already have money* and in proportion to how much money they already have._
Like tax receipts, the bonds are not a "pay for". No one can swap nz cash for bonds until the government creates the currency in the first place by spending. Government spending is NOT 'like a household', it is completely different in operational and economic impact terms. It is creation of tax credits ex nihilo (you can say: with a hard won vote in Parliament).