Latest news with #PayEquityAmendmentBill
1News
14 hours ago
- Politics
- 1News
Youth MPs claim censorship over Govt criticism in speeches
Some Youth MPs say their speeches are being censored if they are critical of the Government, but the Ministry for Youth Development says edits are part of normal protocol. Today is the first day of Youth Parliament 2025, an event that happens every three years. It involves every MP selecting a Youth MP to represent their spot in the House. But some Youth MPs allege they are unable to say what they think about topics currently discussed in Parliament, including the Treaty Principles Bill, changes to the pay equity system, voting rights and climate action. 'We've been told to soften our language, to drop key parts of our speeches and to avoid criticising certain ministers or policies. This isn't guidance, this is fear-based control,' Youth MP Nate Wilbourne told Re: News. Some Youth MPs say they're being censored if they are critical of the Government. (Source: Re: News) ADVERTISEMENT Eighty of the 123 Youth MPs chosen for this year's Youth Parliament were given the opportunity to deliver a speech in the Parliamentary chamber. The Ministry of Youth Development, which is responsible for running the event, said around half of those speakers were given feedback and suggested changes to their speeches. But Youth MP Thomas Brocherie, who is also the co-director of Make It 16, a group campaigning for the voting age to be lowered to 16, said all the speakers received an email from MYD with the subject line 'changes required'. He said this felt like 'blatant editing'. The Youth Parliament event is non-partisan, which means it is not aligned with or opposing any party in Government. Allegations of editing A previous sitting of the Youth Parliament. (Source: NZ Business & Parliament Trust) ADVERTISEMENT Nate Wilbourne, who founded youth organisation Gen Z Aotearoa, said his speech is about the 'war on nature' in which he wanted to call out Ministers Shane Jones, Tama Potaka and Penny Simmonds for their 'assault on te taiao'. He said when he submitted his speech to MYD, it was edited and he was told it 'lacks political neutrality'. 'In any functioning democracy, critique is not only allowed, it is essential. 'When your voices are edited to remove criticism, when ministers are shielded from being named, when we're told that our lived experiences are too political, that is not neutrality – that is protection of the status quo.' Youth MP Sam Allen said their speech included criticism of the Government's Pay Equity Amendment Bill. They said they received suggested edits from MYD on their speech but only some were explained. The line 'I have no idea where you find the audacity to label yourself as a progressive while campaigning for votes, and then cowardly march forward to cut women's pay for our most vulnerable workers' was cut without an explanation, Allen said. The group of Youth MPs also claim a speech about poverty was called 'too anti-rich" and a speech about freedom of speech was also edited. ADVERTISEMENT MYD says it's following protocol MYD general manager John Robertson said the feedback protocol for speeches has been in place since the last Youth Parliament in 2022. 'Our advice was generally focused on supporting them to convey their arguments clearly and effectively, and in keeping with the non-partisan approach of Youth Parliament.' He added: 'We also advised some Youth MPs that changes were required to their speeches to avoid putting themselves at risk.' "Youth MPs are not protected by Parliamentary privilege. This means young people could be held liable if the contents of their speech raise concerns around defamation, copyright, privacy, contempt of court, or broadcasting standards." Youth Minister James Meager said: 'We do not censor the speeches of Youth MPs.' James Meager (Source: Getty) ADVERTISEMENT 'We have been clear to all Youth MPs that they make the final decision about the content of their speech.' But the group of Youth MPs who have spoken out said MYD is in a position of power so young people feel pressured to comply with its suggestions. Meager said he's enjoyed the debates so far, which have been challenging to Government policy, and hasn't seen anything which concerns him in terms of censorship. Labour leader Chris Hipkins told Re: News 'the whole point of Youth Parliament is to give young people, who are often massively underheard, the chance to speak up". 'Asking them to censor their views just because they're critical of the Government is completely out of step with that spirit." Youth Parliament won't be livestreamed this year File image of the steps outside Parliament (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT The past two Youth Parliaments have been fully livestreamed, but this year's is not. MYD said this was due to resource constraints, and that parts will be recorded and shared with the Youth MPs after the event has ended. Youth MP Lincoln Jones said he remembers speeches from previous Youth Parliaments which have been controversial and thinks the lack of live streaming this year is to 'ensure that speeches that don't fit the narrative of this government are not getting out to the general public'. Thomas Brocherie remembers watching Youth Parliament live when he was younger. 'No 14-year-old is going to have that same excited feeling I did because they literally cannot see it,' he said. Youth MPs say they're no longer feeling excited about Youth Parliament While Meager said everyone is 'thoroughly enjoying' Youth Parliament, some Youth MPs said their excitement for the event has now fizzled out. Brocherie said it's 'sad and disheartening' to see Youth Parliament being 'used wrongly' and that his perspective on Youth Parliament has been changed as a whole. Allen said 'people have gone from what should be a really exciting event just feeling quite scared' that they might get into trouble for what they chose to say.
The Spinoff
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
With so many parties ‘ruling out' working with other parties, is MMP losing its way?
Part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of the worst excesses of the political executive. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. There has been a lot of 'ruling out' going on in New Zealand politics lately. In the most recent outbreak, both the incoming and outgoing deputy prime ministers, Act's David Seymour and NZ First's Winston Peters, ruled out ever working with the Labour Party. Seymour has also advised Labour to rule out working with Te Pāti Māori. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has engaged in some ruling out of his own, indicating he won't work with Winston Peters again. Before the last election, National's Christopher Luxon ruled out working with Te Pāti Māori. And while the Greens haven't yet formally ruled anyone out, co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has said they could only work with National if it was prepared to 'completely U-turn on their callous, cruel cuts to climate, to science, to people's wellbeing'. Much more of this and at next year's general election New Zealanders will effectively face the same scenario they confronted routinely under electoral rules the country rejected over 30 years ago. Under the old 'first past the post' system, there was only ever one choice: voters could turn either left or right. Many hoped Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP), used for the first time in 1996, would end this ideological forced choice. Assuming enough voters supported parties other than National and Labour, the two traditional behemoths would have to negotiate rather than impose a governing agenda. Compromise between and within parties would be necessary. Government by decree By the 1990s, many had tired of doctrinaire governments happy to swing the policy pendulum from right to left and back again. In theory, MMP prised open a space for a centrist party that might be able to govern with either major player. In a constitutional context where the political executive has been described as an ' elected dictatorship ', part of the appeal of MMP was that it might constrain some of its worst excesses. Right now, that is starting to look a little naive. For one thing, the current National-led coalition is behaving with the government-by-decree style associated with the radical, reforming Labour and National administrations of the 1980s and 1990s. Most notably, the coalition has made greater use of parliamentary urgency than any other government in recent history, wielding its majority to avoid parliamentary and public scrutiny of contentious policies such as the Pay Equity Amendment Bill. Second, in an ironic vindication of the anti-MMP campaign 's fears before the electoral system was changed – that small parties would exert outsized influence on government policy – the two smaller coalition partners appear to be doing just that. It is neither possible nor desirable to quantify the degree of sway a smaller partner in a coalition should have. That is a political question, not a technical one. But some of the administration's most unpopular or contentious policies have emerged from Act (the Treaty principles bill and the Regulatory Standards legislation) and NZ First (tax breaks for heated tobacco products). Rightly or wrongly, this has created a perception of weakness on the part of the National Party and the prime minister. Of greater concern, perhaps, is the risk the controversial changes Act and NZ First have managed to secure will erode – at least in some quarters – faith in the legitimacy of our electoral arrangements. The centre cannot hold Lastly, the party system seems to be settling into a two-bloc configuration: National/Act/NZ First on the right, and Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori on the left. In both blocs, the two major parties sit closer to the centre than the smaller parties. True, NZ First has tried to brand itself as a moderate 'commonsense' party, and has worked with both National and Labour, but that is not its position now. In both blocs, too, the combined strength of the smaller parties is roughly half that of the major player. The Greens, Te Pāti Māori, NZ First and Act may be small, but they are not minor. In effect, the absence of a genuinely moderate centre party has meant a return to the zero-sum politics of the pre-MMP era. It has also handed considerable leverage to smaller parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Furthermore, if the combined two-party share of the vote captured by National and Labour continues to fall (as the latest polls show), and those parties have nowhere else to turn, small party influence will increase. For some, of course, this may be a good thing. But to those with memories of the executive-centric, winner-takes-all politics of the 1980s and 1990s, it is starting to look all too familiar. The re-emergence of a binary ideological choice might even suggest New Zealand – lacking the constitutional guardrails common in other democracies – needs to look beyond MMP for other ways to limit the power of its governments.
Otago Daily Times
22-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Labour Party: 'The budget that left women out'
Women are the big losers in this year's Budget, the Labour Party and a union says. Budget 2025 documents reveal the tightening of the pay equity regime will net the government $2.7 billion every year. The Pay Equity Amendment Bill was passed on May 7 after being rushed through under urgency. The legislation means 33 equity claims involving hundreds of thousands of workers including nurses and teachers being negotiated will now have to restart the process under new criteria. Labour leader Chris Hipkins responds to the Budget in Parliament this afternoon. Photo: RNZ Labour leader Chris Hipkins said in Parliament this afternoon this year's Budget tells women they are "worth less than tax breaks for landlords, tobacco companies, Google and Facebook". "This is the budget that will be remembered as the budget that left women out, " he told MPs. "This is the budget that said to working Kiwi women, they are worth less - in fact, nearly $3 billion a year less. The budget that says women are worth less than tax breaks for landlords... than tax breaks for tobacco companies... than tax breaks for multinational corporations like Google and Facebook." The PSA Worker's Union was also scathing, calling it a "wage theft budget" that would take more than $12 billion from women. National secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said it exposed the government's naked theft of wages from thousands of underpaid women to pay for tax cuts for landlords. It was a budget paid for by taking $60 million a week from people like care and support workers among others, she said. Fitzsimons called on the government to sit down with workers, unions, employers and pay equity experts in a proper select committee process and come up with a new framework. - RNZ and APL
Otago Daily Times
22-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
'The budget that left women out'
Women are the big losers in this year's Budget, the Labour Party and a union says. Budget documents reveal the tightening of the pay equity regime will net the government $2.7 billion every year. The Pay Equity Amendment Bill was passed on May 7 after being rushed through under urgency. The legislation means 33 equity claims involving hundreds of thousands of workers including nurses and teachers being negotiated will now have to restart the process under new criteria. Labour leader Chris Hipkins responds to the Budget in Parliament this afternoon. Photo: RNZ Labour leader Chris Hipkins said in Parliament this afternoon the 2025 Budget tells women they are "worth less than tax breaks for landlords, tobacco companies, Google and Facebook". "This is the budget that will be remembered as the budget that left women out, " he told MPs. "This is the budget that said to working Kiwi women, they are worth less - in fact, nearly $3 billion a year less. The budget that says women are worth less than tax breaks for landlords... than tax breaks for tobacco companies... than tax breaks for multinational corporations like Google and Facebook." The PSA Worker's Union was also scathing, calling it a "wage theft budget" that would take more than $12 billion from women. National secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said it exposed the government's naked theft of wages from thousands of underpaid women to pay for tax cuts for landlords. It was a budget paid for by taking $60 million a week from people like care and support workers among others, she said. Fitzsimons called on the government to sit down with workers, unions, employers and pay equity experts in a proper select committee process and come up with a new framework. - RNZ and APL
Otago Daily Times
21-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Budget 2025: Govt looks to make promises add up
By Lilian Hanley of RNZ "It feels like a kid robbing his mum to pay for his mates" says library assistant Alex Cass, as she prepares for the government to reveal Budget 2025. New Zealanders will find out on Thursday just how much money will be cut from various services, as the government looks to make its promises add up. Just how much is saved from the pay equity law changes - and where that money will be going instead - will also be revealed. The Pay Equity Amendment Bill was passed on May 7 after being rushed through under urgency. The legislation means 33 equity claims involving hundreds of thousands of workers being negotiated will now have to restart the process under new criteria. Cass was part of a pay equity claim scrapped due to the government's last-minute law change. "It's unbelievably underhanded the way this process has been done. It was done lightning fast, with no chance for any of us to object. It's incredibly cruel, and it's a legacy of cruelty." Cass felt the government was saying to those who are fighting for their work to be taken seriously, "you don't deserve better". She would be on Parliament's lawn on Thursday afternoon to react to the Budget - money she said the government got from people who were "already massively underpaid". But Finance Minister Nicola Willis said New Zealanders were "realistic" because the new scheme would still deliver a scheme protecting women against sex-based discrimination. "Every single cent" reprioritised from money reallocated from those claims would go into "priorities for New Zealand", she claimed. "I've had it with opposition politicians who keep promising they can 'do it all', that somehow they're gonna stick to the debt levels, they're not gonna have deficits but also they're not gonna make savings and they're gonna spend on everything - that doesn't add up. "Our approach is different" she said. "It's about prioritising your taxpayer money carefully and ensuring that we're actually nourishing the growth that ultimately delivers the jobs and living standards we all depend on." For this Budget, the government's given itself only $1.3 billion of new money to use on day-to-day spending. Already $2.5b is needed for yearly cost increases and more than $3b has been allocated in pre-budget announcements for health, defence, social investment, state abuse survivor redress and a screen production rebate. "It's not a budget filled with rainbows and unicorns," Willis said, "It's a reality budget that will deliver genuine hope for the future." She also called it a "no BS" budget - but would not specify what that stood for. Labour, Greens critical Labour leader Chris Hipkins said "paying women properly" should not be described as "rainbows and unicorns". "Making sure women who have been underpaid are paid what they're worth is something that a responsible government should prioritise - this government isn't." Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said it did look like a "BS" budget. "The government has decided it is going to be cutting public services to the bone in order to pay for its landlord and tobacco tax cuts of the last budget." Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney, who is also on the Labour Party's policy council, said the government did not have much to work with given it would not borrow more money. "We're cutting government services at a time when we know there's increasing demand on those services. We have an increasingly elderly population. We have increasingly higher needs in terms of health and education." Now is the time to invest in the economy and inject some confidence into the economy, he believed. Despite the government saying it would not cut frontline services, Kiwis were finding it harder to access those frontline services, he said. "It's not that there's a direct cut, but because these services aren't being properly funded for change, they're having to work harder and harder to deliver the same services with less real cash available to them." In the Budget, he will be looking out for how the government has chosen to use the savings from stopping pay equity claims. He will also be looking at Treasury's estimates for what is happening to unemployment, wages and the cost of living. "We've actually seen wages rising far less quickly than in the past, and we've seen two years of cuts to the minimum wage in real terms, and we've seen rising unemployment. "If those trends continue, that will suggest that the medicine and the pain of economic change is really being borne by workers, in particular, low-paid workforces, rather than by others in the economy who might have broader shoulders." He also will be looking to see if the government changes KiwiSaver settings, or begins means-testing for the winter energy payment or BestStart. "If it tries to do all of those to balance the books, we'll be asking why is it that these workers are having to pay the price for the fact that the government hasn't been able to deliver its fiscal plan to date." New Zealand Initiative chief economist Dr Eric Crampton said the government should focus on getting spending back down to pre-Covid levels. He wanted to know where the government was planning on reducing expenditure to deal with its deficit. "If it's simply tighter spending allowances over the next few years, you start wondering how credible it is as a path to get out of structural deficit. "Pulling the government out of the provision of some services, or explicitly cutting the amount that's provided, would signal a more serious approach." Crampton was interested to see Treasury's projections of future paths for government spending, and for productivity and GDP growth, as well as government spending priorities. "I'm watching for the tweaks the government might make to align the budget with the economic growth agenda. "There has been talk of changes in depreciation schedules to encourage private investment." He also pointed to a coalition agreement promise between National and ACT to provide housing incentive payments to councils, asking if it would show up in the Budget "at least as a forecast for next year". "The government would need to make fiscal room for it. But it is important if the government wants councils to welcome urban growth." The Finance Minister has confirmed she will not be making any changes to superannuation.
