Matt Henry takes six wickets as New Zealand seize advantage in Bulawayo
Act minister David Seymour and Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick join Ryan Bridge on Herald NOW to discuss oil and gas exploration, the nurses' strike and electoral law changes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
Mediawatch: The politics of PayWave
Photo: 123RF "Can someone get the Beehive a press secretary who can understand a news cycle?" asked the host of Herald Now show Ryan Bridge, opening his show last Tuesday with a bit of a broadside at the government's political management. "Yesterday we had a 10-minute sermon - that's the opposition's words - from Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon about the cost of living crisis," he said, referring to Monday's post-Cabinet press conference . That was timed for the first anniversary of their tax cuts - so why was that timing so bad? Bridge flourished The Herald 's own front page that day with a scoop about big boosts to the fees that Crown bodies can pay board members. "It's probably the worst headline you could have at a time like this," he spluttered. "Now I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but the timing... come on!" In bad economic times, stuff that looks bad can end up looking a lot worse no matter what day it goes public. The lead story on Herald Now that day also looked like it was timed with optics in mind - banning surcharges on in-store contactless transactions. "Those pesky surcharges on card payments are gone-skis," Bridge declared, echoing the government's own announcement. "Most customers will be very happy to see an end to the horrible little curled up handwritten coffee stain stickers on the EFTPOS machine," Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson told Ryan Bridge. But Bridge was not distracted by the aesthetics of EFTPOS terminals. He wanted to know who would really reap the benefit of the estimated $150 million saved from the surcharges salami-sliced out at stores as things stand. "That will be absorbed into the retail system," the minister said. "Right. Higher prices, in other words?" Bridge asked. "It's not much over the entire New Zealand commercial marketplace," the minister countered. But if so, it would not really cut the cost of living very much at all - and was not really a strong lead story at a time with so much else going on. "We can only pray that Luxon and Willis understand that shifting $90 million from banks to consumers is irrelevant in the context of a $430 billion economy, including the $7.2 billion the banks made in profits last year," columnist Matthew Hooton said in The Herald on Friday. Consumer NZ was not stoked that credit card surcharges applied to online payments were not covered by the ban. "This is disappointing because your flight or accommodation booking or any other online purchases could still attract a surcharge," Consumer NZ said. "Those transactions are generally much more expensive to process because... they have to protect against online scams, online fraud," Nicola Willis told RNZ's First Up . "We've kept them out of the regime for now because part-passing on the charge to the consumer makes more sense there," she added. But banks also deal with that and their charges are regulated - and it is far from transparent now how those costs are covered for online credit card transactions. While the Prime Minister had said on Monday: "You will no longer be penalised for your choice of payment method," media scrutiny this week revealed that users of EFTPOS and cash payers might end up penalised by a ban. "Any transaction where someone pays by swiping or inserting, is free for a retailer. But as people move to contactless... a higher percentage of their transactions will incur a fee," Retail NZ's Carolyn Young told RNZ 's Morning Report . The Commerce Commission recently moved to cap the interchange fees banks charge each other. That was also meant to reduce the cost to retailers. More people now using PayWave could wipe out the other potential benefits. "I think it's really just performative. If we're paywaving everywhere and then the costs are shared across everyone," Dan Brunskill of told RNZ 's Nine to Noon on Tuesday when asked about the PayWave surcharge ban. The same day BusinessDesk pointed out that just 10 days earlier the Commerce Commission had claimed its interchange fee cap would save businesses $90 million a year in payment costs. The Commission [ also said it was already exploring what regulation may be needed to address excessive surcharging, which it estimated at about $45 million to $60 million a year. But Business Desk's headline Government beats Commerce Commission to card surcharge ban showed that in this case, the government might have got its PR timing right to take the credit for reduced credit card payment costs now. The media scrutiny also illuminated another duopolistic aspect of our economy: Visa and MasterCard dominating this payment trade. Alternatives do exist, BusinessDesk tech reporter Peter Griffin pointed out on Wednesday . But he said after the surcharge ban, PayWavers here will be less likely to seek out cheaper solutions if they cannot see they are cheaper. "We should now focus on reducing the underlying costs of payment processing, not simply regulating away the only mechanism for acknowledging those costs. In the world of payments, as in so much else, what's visible on the bill is only the start of the story." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
NZ Herald
10 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.
Scoop
11 hours ago
- 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.
