Latest news with #VanVelden
Scoop
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
On Free Speech And Anti-Semitism
For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. According to Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden, employers are having to endure a 'culture of fear' created by Worksafe, which has the power to prosecute them if if they are operating unsafe workplaces. There seems to be only anecdotal evidence – from employers at a government roadshow – that Worksafe has ever used its powers indiscriminately, or that good employers need to worry about a visit by the labour inspectorate. Regardless, and despite New Zealand's terrible track record of workplace-related deaths, injuries and illnesses – demonstrably worse than in the UK or Australia – it is going to be made harder in future to find anyone criminally liable. As we did before in the early 1990s, an already underfunded enforcement regime is going to be turned back towards one of voluntary compliance by employers, who will be advised on how to put into practice the codes of conduct that they have been invited to write. Worksafe is being told to prioritise this 'advice' and 'guidance' role. Van Velden also indicated to Jack Tame on Q&A on the weekend, that she's looking at clarifying (i.e. reducing) the responsibilities of company directors and managers, with respect to their liability for the workplace conditions in the companies that they steward. Van Velden cited the White Island prosecutions as an example of the net of prosecutions being cast too widely. So if employers, directors and managers are to be held less liable in future, just who is being made more liable? Workers. To RNZ, Van Velden has said the re-balancing at Worksafe would include 'strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty.' Talk about blaming the victim. Finally, and as Tame pointed out to Van Velden, this new soft-line approach to employers is not at all like the way that the government treats beneficiaries. There's an obvious double standard. Allegedly, employers require guidance, lest they live in fear of being sanctioned for their sub-standard workplace conditions and/or dangerous work practices. Yet the poor are treated as if they require sanctions, as if living in fear of losing their meagre income will improve their behaviour. Employers are to receive the carrot of guidance, the poor are getting the stick of sanctions. So it goes, under this most Dickensian of governments. Natives, being restless Looking back… how terrifying it must have been for the members of the ACT Party to be challenged by a real live haka performed by real live brown people within the safe and familiar confines of the debating chamber. Gosh. To think that MPs still have to endure such goings on, despite all that the coalition government has done so far to rid the political process of anything that smacks of biculturalism. Funny though… those uniquely harsh sentences on the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, were applauded by the same ACT Party that – only a few months ago – took steps to compel universities t o allow the peddlers of misinformation to have access to the nation's campuses. In 2019, ACT Party leader David Seymour even called for the funding to be cut to tertiary institutions that did not take an all-comers approach to speakers on campus. 'It is not the role of universities to protect students from ideas they find offensive….' Mr Seymour said. On one hand, ACT Party MPs are to be protected from being exposed to interruptions and/or challenges. But trans people, or other vulnerable student minorities on campus? ACT's message to them is tough shit, and suck it up – because the cause of free speech trumps all other concerns, as long as it is not being directed at them. Odd indeed that a libertarian party committed to free speech should be deploying the forces of the state to compel universities to throw open their doors to anyone, without apparent heed to the consequences. One has to wonder whether this licence will be extended to Holocaust deniers, and to advocates of the Great Replacement Theory promulgated by the Christchurch mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant. This is happening in the absence of evidence that there is a problem on campus that requires this level of heavy handed, pre-emptive intervention by the state. Saying sorry For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. Mr Speaker could have said – 'I take that to be three votes against,' and moved on. At that point, the vote's outcome was not in question. In context then, the performance of the haka was an expression of resistance meant to signal that Māori would continue to resist this legislative attempt to unilaterally change the nature of the Crown's partnership with Māori. To that end, the haka protest was a case of Māori representatives, protesting in Māori against an injustice being done to Māori, and it was occurring within the same precinct where the injustice was unfolding. IMO, you could hardly find a more appropriate time and place for that expression of free speech, delivered in one of the three languages formally recognised byParliament. Not only has the punishment been bizarrely disproportionate to the offence, but so have the calls for Te Pāti Māori to have made a plea deal in mitigation, by apologising for their defiance. Really? In the light of the time, effort and taxpayer money wasted by the ACT Party in bringing their pre-destined-to-fail Bill into Parliament, there should have been calls made – simultaneously – for the ACT Party to apologise. Seriously. We might then have had genuine grounds for a compromise. The Action Against Universities ACT's recent move to restrict the discretion of universities is disturbing on several grounds. But here's a contemporary concern. In the US, the Trump administration's recent attacks on major universities like Harvard – and their international students – has been aimed at punishing campus demonstrations against US/Israeli policy on Gaza, and at deterring university councils from divesting their sizeable investments in Israel. As yet, protests against Gaza have not been not as prominent on campuses here. Here's how the Gaza issue could easily come to the fore. New Zealand joined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as an observer on June 24, 2022. The IHRA is an inter-governmental body based in Stockholm that is solely devoted to anti-Holocaust activities. It has at least 31 full member countries (including Australia) and also 8 'observer' countries, including New Zealand. As of June 24, New Zealand will reportedly be obliged to pay 30,000 euros to the IHRA to maintain its observer status. Alternatively, New Zealand could always apply for full IHRA membership, under the tutelage of an existing full member, presumably, Australia. If that happened, it would be interesting for New Zealanders to be given lessons by Australians on how to promote better race relations. To attain even our current 'observer' status, New Zealand would have previously had to (among other things) submitted an application letter signed by either our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Minister of Education. New Zealand would have also agreed to abide by these conditions. For example: we will have had to complete a survey on the state of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research in the country, which will have been submitted to the IHRA Permanent Office at least eight weeks before the Plenary meeting at which the interested government seeks admission as an Observer. Evidently – since New Zealand does now have observer status within the IHRA – we did all of the above. Much as some NZ politicians profess to oppose the use of the education curriculum for social engineering purposes, there would be few New Zealanders who would oppose a commitment to ensuring that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again. But here's the not un-related problem. In December 2023, the US Congress passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that placed a very broad definition of anti-Semitism, promoted by the IHRA at the centre of federal civil rights law. At the time, some voices in US higher education circles expressed concern worried that this definition could have a chilling effect on free speech on key element in all of this was the controversial 'working definition' of anti-Semitism that has been promoted since 2016 by the IHRA. The IHRA website containing this definition is here. This definition of anti-Semitism has come under fire, from Jews and non-Jews alike. In Australia, the IHRA definition has been criticised by numerous academics and human rights lawyers as an infringement on academic freedom, free speech and the right to political protest. The IHRA has also faced a global backlash from Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of anti-Semitism, which includes 'targeting the state of Israel', could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle the freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK. In 2023, Nick Reimer the president of the Sydney branch of the Tertiary Education Union described the adoption of the IHRA definition as an 'outright attack on academic freedom'.'[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they're meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,' he said. 'A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities..' Kenneth Stern, who self-identifies as a Zionist (and who was the lead drafter of the IHRA definition) has since spoken out in the New Yorker magazine against the misuse of the IHRA definition by right wing Jewish extremists. Among Stern's concerns is that the IHRA definition could be weaponised to stifle legitimate protest. So here's the thing. IF ACT feels driven to protect free speech on campus, would it oppose – or would it support – the adoption by university councils of the definition of anti-Semitism being promoted by the IHRA? In 2018, the Auckland University Students Association formally adopted the IHRA definition, but it is unclear whether student unions at any other NZ university have followed suit, let alone any NZ university administrations. Would ACT – as a a self-declared champion of free speech on controversial issues – support or oppose them doing so, given how the definition has allegedly been weaponised to restrict free speech? The Other Option Thankfully, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only option on the table. A competing definition of anti-Semitism emerged in 2021, largely in order to remedy the concerns held about the sweeping ambit of the IHRA definition. The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism is available here. It makes significant distinctions that are lacking in the IHRA document. Some of its guidelines are striking in nature. In context, it condones the controversial 'from the river to the sea' slogan and the boycott and divestment programme as being legitimate expressions of political protest. As Guideline 12 says: 12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form. And here's Guideline 14 : 14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. In its preamble, the Jerusalem Declaration also makes a useful distinction between criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, and anti-Semitism. It states 'Hostility to Israel could be an expression of anti-Semitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or … the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.' Exactly. Criticism of the Israeli state is not necessarily (or primarily) motived by sentiments of anti-Semitism. Reportedly, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism has been signed by three hundred and fifty scholars, including the historian Omar Bartov and Susannah Heschel, the chair of the Jewish Studies programme at the prestigious Dartmouth College in the US. So, and again… since ACT Party seems intent on having the state dictate to university councils how they should handle issues of free speech on campus, perhaps ACT can enlighten us on how it thinks universities should be treating allegations and defining the parameters of anti-Semitism. For starters: which definition of anti-Semitism does the ACT Party believe is more conducive to free and open debate on campus (and why) – the IHRA one, or the Jerusalem Declaration On Anti-Semitism? Big Thief Returns Adrianne Lenker's lyrics can seem as natural as breathing, at least until you notice how tightly structured her rhymes are, how surprising her analogies can be, and how the song narrative never wanders from the path of her intent. The new Big Thief track 'Incomprehensible' starts out as road trip with her lover along the Canadian side of Lake Superior – Thunder Bay and Old Woman Bay get nam-checked – before in verse two, the song becomes a meditation on growing old, and on how society teaches women to react with dread to the signs of ageing. Instead, Linker celebrates the silver hairs now falling on her shoulders, and what she sees in the faces and bodies of her older female relatives. Most songwriters would have left it that. But Lenker turns further inwards. As the lyric says, she wrote this song on the eve of her 33rd birthday, and she seems to have to terms with how unknowable – incomprehensible – we are to ourselves, and to each other. If you know Lenker's back catalogue, the 'Incomprehensible'song (BTW, it is the opening track of the upcoming Big Thief album Double Infinity) is the polar opposite of her earlier solo track, 'Zombie Girl.' In that song about a dis-integrating relationship, she's failing to bridge the distance between herself, and the zombie girl lying beside her.
Scoop
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
On Free Speech And Anti-Semitism
According to Workplace Health and Safety Minister Brooke Van Velden, employers are having to endure a 'culture of fear' created by Worksafe, which has the power to prosecute them if if they are operating unsafe workplaces. There seems to be only anecdotal evidence - from employers at a government roadshow - that Worksafe has ever used its powers indiscriminately, or that good employers need to worry about a visit by the labour inspectorate. Regardless, and despite New Zealand's terrible track record of workplace-related deaths, injuries and illnesses - demonstrably worse than in the UK or Australia - it is going to be made harder in future to find anyone criminally liable. As we did before in the early 1990s, an already underfunded enforcement regime is going to be turned back towards one of voluntary compliance by employers, who will be advised on how to put into practice the codes of conduct that they have been invited to write. Worksafe is being told to prioritise this 'advice' and 'guidance' role. Van Velden also indicated to Jack Tame on Q&A on the weekend, that she's looking at clarifying (i.e. reducing) the responsibilities of company directors and managers, with respect to their liability for the workplace conditions in the companies that they steward. Van Velden cited the White Island prosecutions as an example of the net of prosecutions being cast too widely. So if employers, directors and managers are to be held less liable in future, just who is being made more liable? Workers. To RNZ, Van Velden has said the re-balancing at Worksafe would include 'strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty.' Talk about blaming the victim. Finally, and as Tame pointed out to Van Velden, this new soft-line approach to employers is not at all like the way that the government treats beneficiaries. There's an obvious double standard. Allegedly, employers require guidance, lest they live in fear of being sanctioned for their sub-standard workplace conditions and/or dangerous work practices. Yet the poor are treated as if they require sanctions, as if living in fear of losing their meagre income will improve their behaviour. Employers are to receive the carrot of guidance, the poor are getting the stick of sanctions. So it goes, under this most Dickensian of governments. Natives, being restless Looking back… how terrifying it must have been for the members of the ACT Party to be challenged by a real live haka performed by real live brown people within the safe and familiar confines of the debating chamber. Gosh. To think that MPs still have to endure such goings on, despite all that the coalition government has done so far to rid the political process of anything that smacks of biculturalism. Funny though… those uniquely harsh sentences on the three Te Pāti Māori MPs, were applauded by the same ACT Party that - only a few months ago - took steps to compel universities t o allow the peddlers of misinformation to have access to the nation's campuses. In 2019, ACT Party leader David Seymour even called for the funding to be cut to tertiary institutions that did not take an all-comers approach to speakers on campus. "It is not the role of universities to protect students from ideas they find offensive….' Mr Seymour said. On one hand, ACT Party MPs are to be protected from being exposed to interruptions and/or challenges. But trans people, or other vulnerable student minorities on campus? ACT's message to them is tough shit, and suck it up - because the cause of free speech trumps all other concerns, as long as it is not being directed at them. Odd indeed that a libertarian party committed to free speech should be deploying the forces of the state to compel universities to throw open their doors to anyone, without apparent heed to the consequences. One has to wonder whether this licence will be extended to Holocaust deniers, and to advocates of the Great Replacement Theory promulgated by the Christchurch mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant. This is happening in the absence of evidence that there is a problem on campus that requires this level of heavy handed, pre-emptive intervention by the state. Saying sorry For the record: the haka in Parliament did not disrupt the taking of the first reading vote on The Treaty Principles Bill. It occurred after the votes from the other political parties had been cast and tallied, as the footage from Parliament clearly shows. Mr Speaker could have said - 'I take that to be three votes against,' and moved on. At that point, the vote's outcome was not in question. In context then, the performance of the haka was an expression of resistance meant to signal that Māori would continue to resist this legislative attempt to unilaterally change the nature of the Crown's partnership with Māori. To that end, the haka protest was a case of Māori representatives, protesting in Māori against an injustice being done to Māori, and it was occurring within the same precinct where the injustice was unfolding. IMO, you could hardly find a more appropriate time and place for that expression of free speech, delivered in one of the three languages formally recognised byParliament. Not only has the punishment been bizarrely disproportionate to the offence, but so have the calls for Te Pāti Māori to have made a plea deal in mitigation, by apologising for their defiance. Really? In the light of the time, effort and taxpayer money wasted by the ACT Party in bringing their pre-destined-to-fail Bill into Parliament, there should have been calls made - simultaneously - for the ACT Party to apologise. Seriously. We might then have had genuine grounds for a compromise. The Action Against Universities ACT's recent move to restrict the discretion of universities is disturbing on several grounds. But here's a contemporary concern. In the US, the Trump administration's recent attacks on major universities like Harvard - and their international students - has been aimed at punishing campus demonstrations against US/Israeli policy on Gaza, and at deterring university councils from divesting their sizeable investments in Israel. As yet, protests against Gaza have not been not as prominent on campuses here. Here's how the Gaza issue could easily come to the fore. New Zealand joined the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) as an observer on June 24, 2022. The IHRA is an inter-governmental body based in Stockholm that is solely devoted to anti-Holocaust activities. It has at least 31 full member countries (including Australia) and also 8 'observer' countries, including New Zealand. As of June 24, New Zealand will reportedly be obliged to pay 30,000 euros to the IHRA to maintain its observer status. Alternatively, New Zealand could always apply for full IHRA membership, under the tutelage of an existing full member, presumably, Australia. If that happened, it would be interesting for New Zealanders to be given lessons by Australians on how to promote better race relations. To attain even our current 'observer' status, New Zealand would have previously had to (among other things) submitted an application letter signed by either our Minister of Foreign Affairs or our Minister of Education. New Zealand would have also agreed to abide by these conditions. For example: we will have had to complete a survey on the state of Holocaust education, remembrance, and research in the country, which will have been submitted to the IHRA Permanent Office at least eight weeks before the Plenary meeting at which the interested government seeks admission as an Observer. Evidently - since New Zealand does now have observer status within the IHRA - we did all of the above. Much as some NZ politicians profess to oppose the use of the education curriculum for social engineering purposes, there would be few New Zealanders who would oppose a commitment to ensuring that nothing like the Holocaust ever happens again. But here's the not un-related problem. In December 2023, the US Congress passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that placed a very broad definition of anti-Semitism, promoted by the IHRA at the centre of federal civil rights law. At the time, some voices in US higher education circles expressed concern worried that this definition could have a chilling effect on free speech on key element in all of this was the controversial 'working definition' of anti-Semitism that has been promoted since 2016 by the IHRA. The IHRA website containing this definition is here. This definition of anti-Semitism has come under fire, from Jews and non-Jews alike. In Australia, the IHRA definition has been criticised by numerous academics and human rights lawyers as an infringement on academic freedom, free speech and the right to political protest. The IHRA has also faced a global backlash from Palestinian and Arab scholars who argue its definition of anti-Semitism, which includes 'targeting the state of Israel', could be used to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel and stifle the freedom of expression, citing the banning of events supporting Palestinian rights on campuses after the definition was adopted by universities in the UK. In 2023, Nick Reimer the president of the Sydney branch of the Tertiary Education Union described the adoption of the IHRA definition as an 'outright attack on academic freedom'.'[The IHRA] will prevent universities doing what they're meant to do … critically analyse the contemporary world without concern for lobbies,' he said. 'A powerful political lobby is trying to stifle the course of free debate in universities..' Kenneth Stern, who self-identifies as a Zionist (and who was the lead drafter of the IHRA definition) has since spoken out in the New Yorker magazine against the misuse of the IHRA definition by right wing Jewish extremists. Among Stern's concerns is that the IHRA definition could be weaponised to stifle legitimate protest. So here's the thing. IF ACT feels driven to protect free speech on campus, would it oppose - or would it support - the adoption by university councils of the definition of anti-Semitism being promoted by the IHRA? In 2018, the Auckland University Students Association formally adopted the IHRA definition, but it is unclear whether student unions at any other NZ university have followed suit, let alone any NZ university administrations. Would ACT - as a a self-declared champion of free speech on controversial issues - support or oppose them doing so, given how the definition has allegedly been weaponised to restrict free speech? The Other Option Thankfully, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only option on the table. A competing definition of anti-Semitism emerged in 2021, largely in order to remedy the concerns held about the sweeping ambit of the IHRA definition. The Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism is available here. It makes significant distinctions that are lacking in the IHRA document. Some of its guidelines are striking in nature. In context, it condones the controversial 'from the river to the sea' slogan and the boycott and divestment programme as being legitimate expressions of political protest. As Guideline 12 says: 12. Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants 'between the river and the sea,' whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form. And here's Guideline 14 : 14. Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. In its preamble, the Jerusalem Declaration also makes a useful distinction between criticism of the actions of the Israeli state, and anti-Semitism. It states 'Hostility to Israel could be an expression of anti-Semitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or ... the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State.' Exactly. Criticism of the Israeli state is not necessarily (or primarily) motived by sentiments of anti-Semitism. Reportedly, the Jerusalem Declaration on Anti-Semitism has been signed by three hundred and fifty scholars, including the historian Omar Bartov and Susannah Heschel, the chair of the Jewish Studies programme at the prestigious Dartmouth College in the US. So, and again… since ACT Party seems intent on having the state dictate to university councils how they should handle issues of free speech on campus, perhaps ACT can enlighten us on how it thinks universities should be treating allegations and defining the parameters of anti-Semitism. For starters: which definition of anti-Semitism does the ACT Party believe is more conducive to free and open debate on campus (and why) - the IHRA one, or the Jerusalem Declaration On Anti-Semitism? Big Thief Returns Adrianne Lenker's lyrics can seem as natural as breathing, at least until you notice how tightly structured her rhymes are, how surprising her analogies can be, and how the song narrative never wanders from the path of her intent. The new Big Thief track 'Incomprehensible' starts out as road trip with her lover along the Canadian side of Lake Superior - Thunder Bay and Old Woman Bay get nam-checked - before in verse two, the song becomes a meditation on growing old, and on how society teaches women to react with dread to the signs of ageing. Instead, Linker celebrates the silver hairs now falling on her shoulders, and what she sees in the faces and bodies of her older female relatives. Most songwriters would have left it that. But Lenker turns further inwards. As the lyric says, she wrote this song on the eve of her 33rd birthday, and she seems to have to terms with how unknowable - incomprehensible - we are to ourselves, and to each other. If you know Lenker's back catalogue, the 'Incomprehensible'song (BTW, it is the opening track of the upcoming Big Thief album Double Infinity) is the polar opposite of her earlier solo track, 'Zombie Girl.' In that song about a dis-integrating relationship, she's failing to bridge the distance between herself, and the zombie girl lying beside her.
Scoop
04-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
More Kiwis Oppose Than Support Government's Pay Equity Changes, New Poll Shows
Article – RNZ Nearly two thirds of the public believe the government should have first sought feedback on the controversial change, the latest RNZ Reid Research poll shows., Deputy Political Editor More New Zealanders oppose than support the government's shake-up of the pay equity regime, and a clear majority think the public should have been consulted first, a new poll shows. The latest RNZ Reid Research survey found 43.2 percent of respondents were against the overhaul, compared to just 25.5 percent in favour. Nearly a third – 31.3 percent – remained unsure. On the question of consultation, 68 percent said the government should have first sought feedback, with only 18.6 percent saying no. The remainder – 13.4 percent – were undecided. That opinion carried through to voters' party preferences, with even a slim majority of ACT voters agreeing that there should have been consultation, despite the changes being championed by Workplace Relations Minister and ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden. The poll also indicated limited public comprehension: just 49.7 percent said they understood the changes, 38.2 percent admitted they did not, and a further 12.1 percent were unsure. More than half of those who claimed a lacked of understanding still expressed an opinion about the policy: 38 percent said they opposed it and 13 percent said they supported it. Respondents were surveyed from 23 May through to 30 May, capturing the immediate reaction to last month's Budget and the $12.8 billion of savings made from the coalition's pay equity pivot. Van Velden had announced the overhaul several weeks earlier, before passing legislation through all stages under urgency. Among the key changes: a new merit test was introduced, as well as a greater focus on whether employers could afford higher wages. The threshold to lodge a claim was lifted, and job comparisons across different industries were restricted. Along with the changes, the coalition also extinguished the 33 claims already being considered under the previous scheme. The government argues the regime had expanded beyond its remit, becoming too costly and confusing. The opposition parties and unions says the changes will make it harder for those in female-dominated sectors to achieve fair pay. The RNZ Reid Research result follows a similar question asked in the latest 1News Verian Poll, released on Tuesday. It found 45 percent opposed the pay equity changes, compared to 39 percent in support, and 16 percent who did not know or wouldn't say. Speaking to RNZ, van Velden said she had received mixed feedback but believed the community now recognised that the changes were necessary. 'It's always going to be a difficult conversation,' she said. 'We have fixed resources, we have to make those difficult decisions on behalf of New Zealanders.' And Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ he would not do anything differently if given the chance again. 'We made some pretty tough decisions to go through under urgency. But we had to fix a very unworkable and unaffordable law. It had got completely out of whack.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis suggested some of the public opposition or lack of understanding could have been driven by Labour promoting 'misinformation'. 'Labour have had a very confused position, and their hyperbole in claiming that we were ending equal pay has ultimately done a disservice to them and the people they're seeking to represent, because it's basically untrue.' But Labour leader Chris Hipkins said that was sheer desperation. 'Women up and down the country have a right to feel angry,' Hipkins said. 'The government cut billions of dollars that was otherwise going to be going into low paid women's pay packets, and now they're just desperately trying to deflect attention away from that.' The latest RNZ Reid Research poll showed National and ACT losing support, and without the numbers – even with NZ First – to form a government. ACT leader David Seymour said he did not put much stock in any one poll but acknowledged the recent pay equity changes could be on some voters' minds. 'Doing what is right is what is politically popular in the long term, and even if I'm wrong about that, good policy is worth it anyway. 'We have left New Zealand with a more sensible pay equity regime focused on actual gender-based discrimination, and I think that's worth it.' This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 May 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available here.
Scoop
04-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
More Kiwis Oppose Than Support Government's Pay Equity Changes, New Poll Shows
More New Zealanders oppose than support the government's shake-up of the pay equity regime, and a clear majority think the public should have been consulted first, a new poll shows. The latest RNZ Reid Research survey found 43.2 percent of respondents were against the overhaul, compared to just 25.5 percent in favour. Nearly a third - 31.3 percent - remained unsure. On the question of consultation, 68 percent said the government should have first sought feedback, with only 18.6 percent saying no. The remainder - 13.4 percent - were undecided. That opinion carried through to voters' party preferences, with even a slim majority of ACT voters agreeing that there should have been consultation, despite the changes being championed by Workplace Relations Minister and ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden. The poll also indicated limited public comprehension: just 49.7 percent said they understood the changes, 38.2 percent admitted they did not, and a further 12.1 percent were unsure. More than half of those who claimed a lacked of understanding still expressed an opinion about the policy: 38 percent said they opposed it and 13 percent said they supported it. Respondents were surveyed from 23 May through to 30 May, capturing the immediate reaction to last month's Budget and the $12.8 billion of savings made from the coalition's pay equity pivot. Van Velden had announced the overhaul several weeks earlier, before passing legislation through all stages under urgency. Among the key changes: a new merit test was introduced, as well as a greater focus on whether employers could afford higher wages. The threshold to lodge a claim was lifted, and job comparisons across different industries were restricted. Along with the changes, the coalition also extinguished the 33 claims already being considered under the previous scheme. The government argues the regime had expanded beyond its remit, becoming too costly and confusing. The opposition parties and unions says the changes will make it harder for those in female-dominated sectors to achieve fair pay. The RNZ Reid Research result follows a similar question asked in the latest 1News Verian Poll, released on Tuesday. It found 45 percent opposed the pay equity changes, compared to 39 percent in support, and 16 percent who did not know or wouldn't say. Speaking to RNZ, van Velden said she had received mixed feedback but believed the community now recognised that the changes were necessary. "It's always going to be a difficult conversation," she said. "We have fixed resources, we have to make those difficult decisions on behalf of New Zealanders." And Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ he would not do anything differently if given the chance again. "We made some pretty tough decisions to go through under urgency. But we had to fix a very unworkable and unaffordable law. It had got completely out of whack." Finance Minister Nicola Willis suggested some of the public opposition or lack of understanding could have been driven by Labour promoting "misinformation". "Labour have had a very confused position, and their hyperbole in claiming that we were ending equal pay has ultimately done a disservice to them and the people they're seeking to represent, because it's basically untrue." But Labour leader Chris Hipkins said that was sheer desperation. "Women up and down the country have a right to feel angry," Hipkins said. "The government cut billions of dollars that was otherwise going to be going into low paid women's pay packets, and now they're just desperately trying to deflect attention away from that." The latest RNZ Reid Research poll showed National and ACT losing support, and without the numbers - even with NZ First - to form a government. ACT leader David Seymour said he did not put much stock in any one poll but acknowledged the recent pay equity changes could be on some voters' minds. "Doing what is right is what is politically popular in the long term, and even if I'm wrong about that, good policy is worth it anyway. "We have left New Zealand with a more sensible pay equity regime focused on actual gender-based discrimination, and I think that's worth it." This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 May 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available here.
Otago Daily Times
02-06-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
WorkSafe's focus moves from enforcement to advice
By Russell Palmer of RNZ The government is shifting its work and safety regulator's priorities from enforcement to advice, saying this will help address concerns about underfunding and a "culture of fear". First steps include updating more than 50 guidance documents and launching the hotline - announced in March - for reporting excessive road cones. The restructure goes much deeper than that, though, with Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden issuing a new letter of expectations, rearranging the regulator's finances and redefining its main purpose in legislation. The government has cut $2.2 million from the agency's funding since 2023 - a 1.6% cut from $141.1m to $138.9m - with heightened inflation over that time further increasing costs. The government also set aside $7m for restructuring the regulator - paid for out of the Health and Safety at Work levy - this year's Budget confirming that "while WorkSafe progressed with its proposed restructure, this funding was not ultimately required". About 124 permanent roles have been cut since 2023 - from 724 to 600, a more than 17% trim - although a spokesperson said the agency was now approved for 675 staff and was recruiting for those roles, including new inspectors. Van Velden said she expected the regulator to review its enforcement and prosecution decision-making to focus on "clear breaches and causation", and being even handed. This would include "strengthening its approach to worker breaches of duty". "I've been hearing there is a real culture of fear of people around WorkSafe, and I want people to feel like if they ask for help they will get that help - and so for any business or any worker who wants to know what it is that they should be doing to keep their workers safe, they will know where to go." She denied that this could mean slowing down the rate of prosecutions, however. "No, prosecutions will still remain. I think it's important that we do have enforcement, but we do need to balance that correctly with the upfront guidance." The agency would now have a stronger focus on critical risk and providing consistent, practical advice and guidance for employers to comply with. Van Velden also set out expectations for greater use of codes of conduct. While WorkSafe would continue to work on these, industries would now be invited to draft their own for approval by the minister, making up the majority of new codes in future. "A culture where the regulator is feared for its punitive actions rather than appreciated for its ability to provide clear and consistent guidance is not conducive to positive outcomes in the workplace," she said. Her proposal taken to Cabinet said the changes would shift WorkSafe "from an enforcement agency to one that engages early and well to support businesses and individuals to manage their risks". "I want to see a shift from a regulator that has a safety at all cost mentality, to a regulator that focusses on helping duty-holders do what is proportionate to the risks, including rooting out over-compliance." To support this and "increase fiscal transparency", the regulator's finances would be split into four categories: • Supporting work health and safety practice • Enforcing work health and safety compliance • Authorising and monitoring work health and safety activities • Energy safety WorkSafe's other functions identified in the law would become secondary, with Van Velden saying this would help it "articulate the cost and effectiveness of its activities". The moves were prompted in part by feedback from businesses, collected during a series of roadshow meetings in 11 towns and cities and over 1000 submissions provided in response to a discussion document consulted on over five months. "For too long, businesses and employers have asked for more guidance and help from WorkSafe on how to comply with health and safety legislation, only to be told it's not WorkSafe's job," van Velden said. "WorkSafe has started slashing outdated guidance documents from its website and will be updating guidance where necessary. Fifty documents have already been removed and more will follow. These documents were identified as being no longer relevant, nor reflecting current practice and technology, or containing content that is covered by other more up-to-date guidance." Her Cabinet paper stated the changes would also "help address concerns heard during the consultation that WorkSafe may be underfunded" by making clearer where its resources were being spent. She confirmed the changes would not come with any new funding. "No, there won't be any new funding. I've heard from people who have suggested there does need to be new funding, and I disagree ... WorkSafe has been funded well, but it's very difficult to find where exactly that money is going within WorkSafe," she told RNZ. "It's been very clear over a number of reviews into WorkSafe over the years that they have not been structuring their appropriation correctly. They got into a very big deficit. They've now pulled themselves out of that deficit and are in surplus. But there are still many, many questions as to, where are they spending that money." Her letter to the board set out an expectation the regulator would foster the use of Approved Codes of Practice. WorkSafe would need to provide advice to industries on how to develop and submit these for ministerial approval, while also conducting its own and starting new ones in industries "where there is no clear industry body representation". "While most future ACOPS will be industry-led, I still expect WorkSafe to develop ACOPs where appropriate." WorkSafe would also be expected to strengthen its oversight of other regulators, including "comprehensive monitoring of the third parties framework and addressing stakeholder concerns about inconsistent interpretations by third party certifiers". She expected cultural change to be reflected in its new statement of intent due out in October. Legislative change would be included in a Health and Safety at Work Reform Bill to be introduced later this year. In a statement, a WorkSafe spokesperson said it was working closely with the government on the changes. "We are well placed to deliver on the minister's expectations, via our new strategy and new leadership. WorkSafe is concentrating on the sectors where the most serious harm occurs - agriculture, forestry, construction and manufacturing - and on well-known causes of harm such as vehicles, machinery, working at height and harmful exposures. "Our Statement of Performance Expectations, due out in the coming weeks, will outline our strategic direction, budget, activities, and performance indicators for the 2025-26 year. Our most recent Impacts and Effectiveness Monitor report found 75 percent of businesses surveyed identified health and safety improvements due to their interactions with WorkSafe."
