logo
Lost for words when having to describe a pillock

Lost for words when having to describe a pillock

Sir Ian Taylor discusses rushed legislation, forgotten women and the triumphant return of the word "pillock".
I recently finished reading a book called A Dictionary of Lost Words, a moving tale that left me thinking about the stories we lose when certain voices are left out of the conversation.
The story centres on Esme, a young girl who spends her childhood beneath the sorting table where the first Oxford English Dictionary is being compiled, quite literally beneath the men deciding which words matter.
From her hiding place, she begins collecting discarded words, many of them spoken by women, by workers, by people whose language didn't fit the mould. It's a reminder that history isn't just written by the victors, it is often edited by them as well.
So, when I read about the rushed passage of the government's Equal Pay Amendment Bill, I couldn't help but wonder what voices, what words, were they hoping would drop beneath the table.
Brooke van Velden, the minister behind the Bill, assures us it's all about empowering women. A noble aim, no question. But her reassurances feel a lot like those of Emmeline Pankhurst, the famous suffragette who also features in A Dictionary of Lost Words.
I had always thought that Pankhurst had fought the fight for women to vote in the UK. What I learned was her fight was only for "some" women, not all women. Women who were property-owning, well-spoken and preferably able to prepare a cucumber sandwich without upsetting the tablecloth. Her fight did not include the working-class women of the time.
One could argue that Brooke herself fits nicely into Pankhurst's vision of the ideal female citizen: well-paid, well-dressed and well clear of the factory floor, the night shift in aged care, our overstretched hospitals and schools, or our early childhood centres.
Her work career appears to have been confined to the closeted halls of public relations for firms like Philip Morris, the multinational tobacco company where she was a "corporate affairs consultant".
From there she has stepped into the world of politics where, as part of a minority partner in the coalition government, she enjoys the comfort of a salary of more than $300,000 a year, plus expenses. Not to mention the guaranteed, uncontested, annual pay rises, between now and the next election, of 10%.
In the context of The Dictionary of Lost Words, the word "irony" springs to mind.
I asked ChatGPT how Esme, the central character of the book, might define the word irony in the context of Minister van Velden's rationale for her actions. This was the response.
Esme's Definition of Irony in The Context of the Amendments to the Pay Equity Bill
Irony (n) A word that slips between intention and outcome, cloaked in contradiction. A silent smile, often bitter, where justice is spoken but not served.
It then went on to add:
"Esme might sit with the Oxford Dictionary draft in one hand and the newspaper article in the other, her fingers brushing over the word 'equity' as if to weigh its truth. She would see the irony not simply in the Bill's withdrawal but in who introduced it. A woman in power proposing emergency legislation that would silence the voices of those sitting beneath the table with Esme — women whose work has long gone uncounted: the carers, the cleaners, the teachers, the nurses. Those without names who carry trays, wipe brows, and raise other people's children. Irony is when those who have been voiceless the longest are asked, yet again, to wait their turn."
Van Velden, like Pankhurst, seems to be championing women's rights while quietly stepping around the very women most in need of them.
At another level, there's a wonderful irony (that word again) in A Dictionary of Lost Words.
"Pillock" — this too was a word that fell beneath the table, excluded from the original Oxford Dictionary by the men making the decisions on what words were to be included.
Apparently, it was a "woman's word" and, crucially, one used exclusively to describe men. You can probably guess why the learned gentlemen of the time didn't think it worthy of inclusion.
Back then, every word submitted for the dictionary had to be written on a small piece of paper called a slip, with an example sentence showing how the word was used in context.
I can already picture the slip for this one:
Word: Pillock (n)
Example in context: On hearing David Seymour make the claim that Brooke van Velden had saved her budget, the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, was heard to mutter, "what a pillock."
I can almost see Esme quietly sliding that one into the submission box with a wry smile. No explanation required.
But there is a lot of evidence that supports the case for pillock being used in the context of David Seymour.
— Treaty Principles Bill: millions of taxpayer money spent on a Bill everyone knew would fail when it came to Parliament.
— School lunch cuts: $3 meals outsourced offshore, delivered late and barely edible.
— Charter schools: more millions of taxpayer money spent on administration for just seven schools, one with half a dozen students — learning French.
— The tractor stunt: driving a Land Rover up Parliament's steps, ignoring the advice of security guards that it was an offence.
All this while frontline workers like nurses, early childhood teachers, cleaners and caregivers, the very people historically undervalued and underpaid, are left out of the room, out of the process and out of the promise of change. They deserve to be heard.
Amendments to a Bill meant to fix a history of undervaluing women's work is being pushed through in a way that continues to undervalue women's voices. Esme would be shaking her head.
The fight for equity isn't just about ticking boxes. It's about understanding context, listening deeply and recognising the value of every contribution, not just the ones made from a seat in Parliament or a leather chair in a boardroom.
We have a chance here in Aotearoa to show what real leadership looks like. But leadership doesn't mean charging ahead with blinkers on. It means slowing down long enough to make sure everyone's with you, all voices are heard, especially those that are under the table.
Otherwise, we may one day find ourselves leafing through a future Dictionary of Lost Bills wondering how we managed to lose the meaning of "equity" and how the word pillock made such a triumphant comeback.
I was left wondering what alternatives might be used in place of pillock. There are a number — idiot, fool, simpleton, dunce — but a new one will be added to the list on May 31.
Deputy Prime Minister.
— Sir Ian Taylor is founder and managing director of Dunedin company Animation Research.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill

Scoop

time2 days 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.

Probe wanted into tobacco firms' policy influence
Probe wanted into tobacco firms' policy influence

Otago Daily Times

time3 days ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Probe wanted into tobacco firms' policy influence

Associate Health Minister Casey Costello. Photo: RNZ Following fresh revelations the government has extended a 50% tax cut on heated tobacco products (HTPs) for two more years, health experts across the country are ramping up calls for an independent public inquiry into the tobacco industry's influence on policy. The tax break was introduced last year — against the advice of government officials. The extension comes hot on the heels of last week's allegations the New Zealand First party has been colluding with tobacco giant Philip Morris. It also comes after NZ First list MP and Associate Health Minister Casey Costello led the repeal of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Act 2022. It effectively scrapped laws aimed at slashing tobacco retailers, removing 95% of the nicotine from cigarettes and creating a smoke-free generation by banning sales to those born after 2009. Health Coalition Aotearoa is calling for a public inquiry into tobacco industry influence and is also calling for the prime minister to reassign the tobacco and vaping portfolio away from NZ First. A petition has also been launched by Vape-Free Kids NZ, calling on the prime minister to strip the tobacco and vaping portfolio from New Zealand First. Coalition spokeswoman and University of Otago researcher Dr Jude Ball said the heated tobacco products tax break and the recent extension pointed to interventions by tobacco giant Philip Morris, which has a monopoly on heated tobacco products in New Zealand. "It's a poor use of taxpayer dollars at a time when our health system is already stretched," she said. Labour Party list MP and health spokeswoman Ayesha Verrall has been telling media the tax break would be worth $300million to big tobacco. In Parliament this week, NZ First leader Winston Peters denied there was a tax break for HTPs. In 2023, the tax balance sheet for those alternatives was just $6m, and none of that money went to big tobacco, he said. "What Verrall fails to mention, which she knows to be a fact, is that the figure of $216m — now, apparently, $300m in her quotes — includes the revenue lost from people who have quit smoking cigarettes. "They no longer pay the excessive tax on cigarettes, and therefore the government doesn't have that revenue on the balance sheet. "Any person out there with an ounce of common sense can see that going from $6m to, now, $300m overnight is an outright lie that is being perpetuated continuously and repeated continuously by a certain few in the media." He said New Zealand was now No 2 in the world for the lowest smoking rates. "Our smoke-free policy — which is backed by Prof Bob Beaglehole from ASH — is working, and that's a fact." He said the government was doing everything it could to get the last few remaining "hardcore smokers" off cigarettes and on to alternatives, and those alternatives needed to be more affordable and more accessible. However, Dr Ball said there was no evidence heated tobacco products helped people stop smoking, or that they were significantly less harmful than cigarettes. "Yet the government, despite committing to a one-year trial, have extended the tax cut by two more years. "This decision is favourable to the tobacco industry, but not beneficial to public health. "This latest decision adds to a worrying trend of government policy decisions that align with tobacco company interests." She said the government's approach to evaluating if heated tobacco products helped people quit smoking was unclear. "It is highly unusual for a government to run a trial like this which, by cutting a tax on HTPs, helps the sole seller of heated tobacco products to increase their product sales. "Especially if there is no evidence that product helps people to quit cigarettes. "Tobacco giant Phillip Morris are the sole beneficiaries of this tax cut."

Government extends tax break for Philip Morris heated tobacco products
Government extends tax break for Philip Morris heated tobacco products

NZ Herald

time28-07-2025

  • NZ Herald

Government extends tax break for Philip Morris heated tobacco products

'This Government has the wrong priorities. It is giving tax breaks to tobacco companies now valued at over $300 million and the evaluation they promised, to check that it was helpful, is a total sham.' Labour's Ayesha Verrall criticised the extension, citing health system strain and a $300 million cost. Photo / Getty Images Costello cut the HTP tax rate by 50% last year, with the aim that cheaper prices may encourage people to switch from cigarettes to HTPs. The cut was made despite health officials telling Costello there was no evidence HTPs worked to stop people smoking or were significantly safer than cigarettes. Costello told Cabinet she had her own 'independent advice', which, when she released it later, turned out to be five articles that were either about different products, outdated, or offered only weak support for her view. Treasury said Philip Morris had a monopoly in the HTP market in New Zealand and would be the main beneficiary of the move. NZ First's Casey Costello is under fire for extending HTP tax cuts for another year, favoring tobacco giant Philip Morris. Photo / Getty Images Costello's office told RNZ the tax cut trial would be extended because Philip Morris had to pull its IQOS device from sale last year, as it did not comply with requirements for vaping devices to have a removable battery. Last week, Costello ditched the requirement for removable batteries, saying Cabinet was advised this was the best way to resolve legal action from Mason Corporation, which owns the Shosha vape store chain. A spokesman for the minister said with HTPs off the market for months last year, the original plan for an evaluation after one year did not make sense. 'There wasn't an evaluation because of the withdrawal of HTPs from the market. Any report back would be meaningless as the cheaper HTPs were only available for two months,' the spokesman said. 'Cabinet agreed to extending the HTP review to July 2027 as there will be more market data available.' The spokesman said the evaluation would then be able to show whether 'a sustained price reduction encouraged uptake by smokers' and if it had helped reduce smoking. The assessment would also look at whether HTP use 'encouraged smokers away from vapes' and the extent of 'unintended uptake by young people'. A March 2025 Ministry of Health (MOH) briefing to Costello, focused on how to evaluate the HTP tax cut, said Philip Morris had not initially passed on the excise reduction to consumers. 'There was no price change passed through to customers for the first month, though this is an observation of value in and of itself,' the MOH said. The briefing, obtained by RNZ under the Official Information Act, said Philip Morris had to pull its IQOS device just three months into the tax cut trial. 'All HTP devices were removed from the market in New Zealand due to not meeting new safety regulations. This has meant there have been no HTP devices available for purchase for at least five months of the 12-month trial period.' Costello has said that HTPs 'have a similar risk profile to vapes', but officials from Treasury and Ministry of Health advised her they were much more harmful than vaping. In its March briefing, the MOH told Costello it would be difficult to assess whether people using HTPs had decreased their harm or not. 'While we will be able to assess whether the percentage of current or recent smokers who use HTPs increases, we will not be able to track whether those same people were previously using, or likely to use vapes, for example, whether they moved from a safer alternate product to a more harmful one.' Verrall said the onus should be on Philip Morris to prove its product was safe. 'There is no reason why the government should be running a study for Philip Morris to help get its products used,' she said. 'This product is not a health product. It is a harmful product.' Verrall said the latest update from the Treasury showed the HTP tax cut was forecast to cost up to $293m if continued until 2029. 'It's deeply worrying when our health system is underfunded that the Government is giving away $300m to the benefit of a single company with links to one of the coalition partners,' Verrall said. The extension of the tax break for the Philip Morris products comes after RNZ published documents alleging a close relationship between NZ First and the tobacco giant. The documents, released in litigation against US vaping company JUUL, allege Philip Morris pitched draft legislation to NZ First as part of a lobbying campaign for its HTPs. The documents claim Philip Morris corporate affairs staff 'reached out to NZ First to try and secure regulation to advantage IQOS'. A lobbying firm advising Juul claimed that NZ First leader Winston Peters had a relationship with Philip Morris and also that 'any regulation he champions is likely to be very industry-friendly and highly geared towards commercial interests in the sector'. Peters did not address the allegations that NZ First received material from Philip Morris, but said RNZ's story was a 'tissue of baseless accusations' and that engagement with the tobacco industry was legitimate. 'Multiple government departments have themselves proactively reached out to, and met with, 'big tobacco' for direct feedback and advice on tobacco legislation,' he said, in a post on X. Health Coalition Aotearoa and Vape-Free Kids want Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to strip NZ First of the tobacco and vaping portfolio but he says Costello is doing a great job.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store