National's "promises" are irrelevant

Over the weekend, National announced its latest election promise: increasing paid parental leave from 26 to 30 weeks. Which sounds good, except that this is the party which over-rode parliament to veto an increase in 2016, which cut Best Start payments, and stole $13 billion from New Zealand women by abolishing pay equity. As with their sudden conversion to solar energy, their own record gives them a huge credibility problem, and creates immediate suspicion about their willingness to actually deliver.

But even if they were willing, it doesn't matter. Because the ugly truth is that, given its preferred coalition arrangements, National's "promises" are irrelevant.

Look at the current coalition. Elected without much of a plan, National signed coalition deals with ACT and NZ First which puts the latter two parties in the policy driving seat and lets them call the shots. And this is only going to get worse. All the polls show National will lose seats in the election, so even if the regime manages to retain power by election rigging, National will have less power in it than they do at present. Which means even more NZ First and ACT policy, and even less of National's.

In short, it doesn't matter what National promises this election. If they retain power, it'll be ACT and NZ First policy they're implementing. National's "promises" are simply irrelevant.

The price of justice

Last year, the regime rammed through the Equal Pay Amendment Act under urgency, gutting pay equity laws, dumping all claims, and stealing $13 billion from New Zealand women. Labour wants to reverse that. So naturally, they're getting the usual bullshit question from the regime and its stooges: "how will you pay for it?"

The short answer to this is "who the fuck cares?" It is fundamentally immoral to pay people less because of their gender. The state has been committed to eliminating this form of discrimination for over fifty years. It is appalling that it has taken so long to do so. It is even more appalling to see people quibbling about the fucking cost. Do they think we should pay women less? This is justice; we pay whatever it costs. It's that simple.

And the substantive answer is that we could afford it up until last year. What changed then is the government's priorities: they decided to spend all the state's money on landlord tax cuts and stupid fucking roads, and that these things were somehow more important than justice. That was an appallingly immoral decision, which shows what disgusting sexist pieces of shit the present regime are. But a different government can change those priorities. It can not be sexist, and put justice ahead of greed and stupidity. So, it can "pay for it" by simply reversing National's landlord tax giveaway. Or maybe just by cancelling some stupid roads.

Either way, the people asking these questions should be asked one in return: do they think women should be paid less? If so, they're ghouls and weirdos who have no place in the modern world and can be simply ignored. If not, then why are they even asking? Either way, maybe they should be thinking about the values underlying the policy, rather than the details.

The alternative to pay equity legislation

Last year, the regime rammed through the Equal Pay Amendment Act under urgency, gutting pay equity laws, dumping all claims, and stealing $13 billion from new Zealand women.

Today, they got a taste of the alternative. Because before that law was passed, the College of Midwives started a class action on behalf of its members, alleging breach of a prior settlement, breach of good faith, and unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender. Today, the High Court issued its decision, finding for the midwives on those points, awarded (token) BORA damages, and required that they be restored to the position they would have been in had the breaches not occurred. Which means:

Held, fair and reasonable take home pay, as at 1 July 2020, for a notional LMC midwife working 1.0 FTE was $170,340. Figure to be adjusted for successive years based on Labour Cost Index.

Held, LMC midwives must be paid the fair and reasonable service price, backdated from 1 July 2020.

And "adjusted using the LCI, fair and reasonable take home pay was $200,275.59 in July 2023, and $206,946.03 in July 2024."

In June 2025 the take-home pay for an LMC midwife was $132,000. And that's after a substantial pay equity bump in 2023. In 2020, it was about $99,000. In other words, the court has ruled they've been underpaid by $70K a year for the last five years. Multiply that by 1500 claimants, and its half a billion dollars in midwives pockets.

The question is whether the regime will accept the ruling of the court, whether they'll appeal in a desperate effort to delay payment until its someone else's problem, or pass "fuck you" legislation to overturn the ruling. And with this coalition, the latter can't be ruled out. The sooner we have a new government, the better.

A flagrant abuse of power

When the regime rammed through its law gutting pay equity and stealing $13 billion from the women of Aotearoa, it didn't bother with a select committee process. That might have let people have their say - and worse, seen the media report on what they were saying, which would have been bad for the regime. But a group of former MPs organised their own select committee process to do what parliament had refused to. Now, it has reported back, calling the process an abuse of power, a breach of human rights, and a violation of the rule of law:

The committee described the processes of planning for and enacting the legislation as a "flagrant and significant abuse of power".

It also found the law breached the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act, and the Regulatory Standard Act principles, as well as a number of international conventions that New Zealand was party to, including International Covenants on Civil and Political, and Economic and Social Rights, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

[...]

Committee members also said it could find no evidence in available Cabinet documents or parliamentary debates to support scrapping the scheme.

There are a lot of recommendations, chief of which (of course) is limiting the use of urgency for laws restricting fundamental rights, as well as statutory consultation requirements and constitutional recognition of pay equity as a human right. All of which would be a good start. Both Labour and the Greens have pledged to repeal the Act and restore pay equity if elected; it would be good to see them also commit to constitutional reform to prevent such an abuse from ever happening again.

You can read the full report here.

A people's select committee

Two weeks ago, National rammed the Equal Pay Amendment Bill through Parliament, nuking all current pay-equity claims and stealing $13 billion from New Zealand women. The bill was passed under all-stages urgency, so it didn't get a select committee phase, and the public had no chance to object. But now we do, thanks to Marilyn Waring:

Former National MP Dame Marilyn Waring has gathered a group of female former MPs to hold their own 'people's select committee' on the government's pay equity changes.

The unofficial committee is rounded out with former MPs Jackie Blue, Jo Hayes and Belinda Vernon from National, Nanaia Mahuta, Lianne Dalziel, Steve Chadwick and Lynne Pillay from Labour, Ria Bond from New Zealand First and Sue Bradford from the Greens. All are working on a 'pro bono' - unpaid - basis.

Independent consultant Amy Ross, previously the Public Service Commission's lead on pay equity, and former Parliamentary librarian and researcher Bessie Sutherland would provide additional research support, and would be paid.

Dame Marilyn said they were planning to hold their first session, hearing from submitters, in Wellington on 11 August with subsequent sittings via Zoom to allow for submitters to attend from around the country. All sessions would be public.

Full details, including how to submit, are here. Submissions are due by Thursday, 31 July 2025.

This is a completely informal process, which carries no legal weight. Its primary purpose is to embarass the regime and build a public case for immediate reversal of their theft. But it is still worth submitting to. While parliament is the formal center of politics, in a democracy it should be responding to what happens outside. This is part of showing that it needs to respond, and quickly, or else we will de-elect it and get a new one which will.

$13 billion

That's how much Nicola Willis thinks she stole from New Zealand women by repealing pay equity:

A tax incentive for businesses, boosts to health and education spending, and Crown funding for new gas fields are among new Budget initiatives made viable by nearly $13 billion in cuts to the pay equity regime.

[...]

The Government initially refused to disclose how much money it had saved as a result of the pay equity changes. However, the Budget says there is now $12.8b in “fiscal headroom” over the next four years as a result of the new, tighter system.

And she's using the money "saved" to pay for... more business tax cuts! Not health, housing, welfare, or any of the other countless things we desperately need as a result of National's cuts-driven recession, but to shovel more money to her donors and cronies. It's pure class warfare, based on outright theft. But that's so very very National, isn't it?

Meanwhile, there'll also be $200 million set aside for "co-investment" in the gas industry. This is an industry with literally no future - no future in electricity, no future in industry, and which faces a death spiral for its network. Only a complete sucker would invest in a pre-stranded asset. But then, its not about investment; its about creating a conflict of interest for the next government between its role as an investor and its role as a regulator and policy-maker, which will reliably generate advice and headlines about how much money the government will be burning by doing either. Essentially an ideological poison pill. The good news is that its a contingency, so there are no concrete plans yet for such investments (because there's no new gas fields to invest in), and this government has only 18 months left to run. And the quicker we kick it out, the less we'll lose on this bullshit.

A calculated policy of deceit

This week the government rammed through legislation under urgency to cancel all outstanding pay equity deals and make them impossible to get in future, balancing their books by stealing $17 billion from New Zealand women. It was an outrageous abuse of the democratic process, and since it passed, we've learned just how abusive it was. According to an analysis by Stuff, the government first started plotting this move in December 2023, right after they gained power. The real work began in December last year, and was deliberately kept outside the normal policy process to prevent us from learning about it:

Even many officials who would normally work on a proposal like this were kept in the dark. For instance, no regulatory impact statement was made to assess the lawmaking.

Similarly, the BORA vet was - unusually - issued by the deputy Attorney-General himself, rather than the usual Ministry of Justice team (of course, he said stealing from women was OK, and absolutely did not impact their rights - a case of mansplaining away human rights?)

The government "justifies" this by talking about "legal risk". But what risk is that? The risk that the Employment Relations Authority would rule on and approve deals before they could legislate them away. Which is really a financial risk, that they wouldn't be able to steal as much money. But the real risk they were worried about was democracy: that we would object, that we would protest, that we would submit on the bill, that we would make it clear to their backbench that pursuing this misogynistic policy would result in a bunch of them losing their jobs. And to avoid that, the government pursued a policy of total secrecy, unseen before in modern policy-making.

In short, they followed a calculated policy of deceit, pissing all over our constitutional norms in order to steal from women and attack our democracy. And we should hold them to account for it. There are protests tomorrow in most major centers outside government MPs' electorate offices. Be there, and speak out against this dogshit misogynist regime.

National supports sexism

That's the only possible conclusion we can draw from their decision to legislatively terminate all pay equity claims, and make future claims much harder to win:

Workplace Minister Brooke van Velden announced the moves to raise the threshold for proving work has been historically undervalued to support a claim, on Tuesday saying changes back in 2020 had created problems.

"Claims have been able to progress without strong evidence of undervaluation and there have been very broad claims where it is difficult to tell whether differences in pay are due to sex-based discrimination or other factors."

Claims were concentrated in the public sector, with costs to the Crown of all settlements so far totalling $1.78 billion a year, she said.

"The changes I am proposing will significantly reduce costs to the Crown," she said.

So, they're explicitly going to balance the government's books and pay for landlord tax cuts and new war toys by paying women less. Sexist fuckers.

But there's a reason we have a legislated process for this: because the alternative is that workers go to court, and win a settlement that way - as they did in 2015. And if National cuts off that route, then it gets "negotiated" through industrial action - which, given that nurses are significant claimants, means hospital shutdowns and their healthcare metrics being shat out the window. But I guess their thinking is that that will all happen later, in another budget cycle, so it all gets ignored in favour of the short-term goal of making the books balance this year.

And that's what you get for putting the white male businessman parties in charge. I hope we all remember this at the next election, and kick them out on their arses.

Justice for Afghanistan?

The International Criminal Court is seeking arrest warrants against senior members of the Taliban regime on the grounds that their persecution of women is a crime against humanity:

The international criminal court’s chief prosecutor has requested arrest warrants for the Taliban’s supreme leader and Afghanistan’s chief justice on the grounds that their persecution of women and girls in Afghanistan is a crime against humanity.

It marks the first time the prosecutor has built a case around systemic crimes against women and girls, legal experts say. It is also a rare moment of vindication for Afghan activists, who over the last three years have often felt abandoned by the international community even as Taliban oppression deepened.

[...]

Karim Khan, the ICC chief prosecutor, said in a statement that the Taliban’s supreme leader, Haibatullah Akhundzada, and chief justice, Abdul Hakim Haqqani, are “criminally responsible” for ongoing persecution of girls, women, the LGBTQ+ community and their allies.

Good. And not just because of Afghanistan. There's also Iran and Saudi Arabia, and of course the US is increasingly going full-Gilead. And while none of those countries are parties, establishing a principle in international law that gender persecution is a crime against humanity will still enable their regimes to be held to account in future under other legal jurisdictions. Members of the Republican Party might not be able to take European holidays ever again.

A malevolent authoritarian

One of the fundamentals of the New Zealand government system is consultation. On a broad scale, policy proposals generally need to go through a consultation process with the public, or at least with key stakeholders. And within government, agencies are required to consult each other, with Cabinet requiring formal checks to ensure this is done on certain issues. There are good reasons for this: it stops the government from working at cross-purposes and undermining its own policy agenda, it mitigates against groupthink and silos within agencies, it allows the impacts of policies to be accurately identified, and (most importantly) it stops the government making huge mistakes. But Rimmer thinks it takes too long, so he wants to end it. But only for certain voices, of course:

Minister for Regulation David Seymour is frustrated at the way population ministries can slow down the business of government.

Most proposals have to be farmed out to population ministries like the Ministries for Women, Māori, and Pacific Peoples asking whether they think any policy changes will impact the people they are responsible for.

If the ministries have anything to say, and often they do not, their comments are put in a box on the final Cabinet Paper.

Some papers also receive a climate impact assessment, which triggers if the proposal is likely to have an impact on New Zealand’s emissions reduction goals.

Speaking to On the Tiles, the Herald’s politics podcast, Seymour said this slowed things down and that he was keen to change it, although a final proposal had not gone to other ministers.

Seymour said he believed too many of these ministries were consulted when drafting Cabinet papers.

This is a crystal clear statement of which voices Rimmer think matter and which don't - and in the latter category is everyone who isn't a polluting white male. But its also a clear statement of how he wants to govern: by silencing anyone who might speak out against his far-right agenda, and censoring advice which might accurately identify the impacts of his policies. Which is also something you can see in his command that schools punish climate strikers. The man is a nasty malevolent authoritarian. The question is how much we are going to let him undermine our democracy.

Labour dragging its feet on pay transparency

Last year, the Education and Workforce Committee recommended that the government legislate for pay transparency to prevent employers from secretly discriminating. This ought to be a bread and butter issue for Labour - discrimination sees women (and particularly Māori and Pasifika women) paid significantly less than men. But since then... crickets:

[T]he timing of any legislation remains uncertain.

Tinetti said on Tuesday that the Government was committed to ensuring all women were paid fairly and a pay transparency system was “one lever that may help in closing the gender pay gap”.

But she wouldn’t say whether she expected to introduce a law change in the current parliamentary term, explaining that the work being conducted by Nacew was still underway.

Realistically, while legislation could be introduced, there's no chance of this being passed by the election. Which means Labour foot-dragging has basicly seen this delayed for a full Parliamentary term (and maybe buried it forever if there's a change of government). Effectively they've sold out their core supporters to sexists, racists, and capitalists. Heckuva job, Labour; I hope you're proud of yourselves.

Blowback on abortion

At the end of June, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, putting abortion rights in America under threat. The move was unpopular - abortion rights have had clear majority support for decades and only a tiny minority of religious bigots think it should be illegal in all circumstances - but Republican theocrats didn't care, and started enacting (or activating) abortion bans. One of these efforts was in Kansas, where Republicans ran a referendum to overturn a state supreme court ruling and remove abortion protection from the state constitution. Being Republicans, of course, they didn't want a fair vote - so they ran a physical vote parallel to the Republican Party primary (where Democrats and non-aligned voters wouldn't be voting), and pulled out all the usual scams to trick people into voting the way they wanted. And despite all that, they just had their arses handed to them:

Kansans secured a huge win for abortion rights in the US on Tuesday night when they voted to continue to protect abortion in the state constitution.

The race was called by a host of US groups like NBC News, the New York Times and Decision Desk HQ.

The move will be seen as huge a loss for the anti-abortion movement and a major win for abortion rights advocates across America, who will see the result as a bellwether for popular opinion.

And this is Kansas, about as red a state as you can get. If Kansas won't vote to eliminate abortion rights - by a margin of 60 - 40 - then it seems unlikely other states will if given the choice. And Republican legislators pushing for abortion bans may find themselves getting massacred at the ballot box come November.

Samoa's women's quota: Have I missed something?

(Narrator voice: Yes, yes I did. See correction at the bottom)

Another election petition was finalised in Samoa today, seeing the first finding of an illegal practice against a FAST candidate (a party roadshow made a customary gift - koha in NZ terms - during a period where these are forbidden). She wasn't disqualified - it was an illegal practice, not a corrupt one - but before I learned that I wondered whether this would affect the operation of Samoa's women's quota. And that rabbit-hole got interesting.

Samoa's constitution requires that a minimum of 10% of parliament be women, with additional MPs appointed if not enough are elected. It has been established by recent court rulings that that (presently) means six women, and that appointments are made after all election petitions and resulting byelections are resolved (and that parliament can sit before that). Section 44(1B) of Samoa's constitution says that the (unsuccessful) candidates with the highest number of votes are appointed. According to the final election results, the top five unsuccessful candidates were:

• Toomata Norah Leota (FAST) (780 votes)
• Gatoloaifaana Amataga Alesana-Gidlow (HRPP) (555 votes)
• Ali'imalemanu Alofa Tuuau (HRPP) (464 votes)
• Lolomatauama Eseta Mataituli (FAST) (292 votes)
• Atuatasi Katifa Bryce (FAST) (244 votes)

(Note that following the resignation of Leota Tima Leavai there are now only four female MPs. There are a bunch of byelections to be determined, which may see women elected or poll well, but on the present numbers, assuming nothing changes that seems to mean Leota and Gidlow would be appointed, with no change in the balance of power).

On 20 April, after these results came out, Samoa's head of state purported to appoint Ali'imalemanu Alofa Tuuau as an additional member. That appointment was later thrown out by the courts, but on the basis that it was made at the wrong time. Meanwhile, I'm left wondering why the third highest-polling unsuccessful candidate was appointed in the first place. Have I missed something?

Correction: And the thing I missed: the clause saying "“Highest number of votes” means the percentage of the total valid votes in a constituency polled by a woman candidate" (which I guess is because Samoan electorates are not equal-sized). So Tuuau has 464 / 1159 votes = 40%, Leota 780 / 2200 votes = 35%, and Gidlow 555 / 1669 votes = 33%, and Tuuau and Leota are first to be appointed if nothing changes.

Equality only for the privileged in the UK

The UK is a laggard on paid parental leave, offering only 6 weeks at 90% pay, followed by 33 weeks at less than the minimum wage (NZ isn't that hot either, BTW). But finally, some women are getting decent, paid leave: Ministers!

The government is facing a backlash over plans to change the law to give cabinet ministers six months’ maternity leave on full pay, allowing the attorney general, Suella Braverman, to keep her post after having her baby but excluding backbench MPs from similar rights.

Labour will back the move, but it has caused some disquiet among backbench MPs angry that the maternity rights will only apply to secretaries of state, and go further than those that apply to the general public.

Under existing laws, Braverman would have to resign if she wanted to take time off following the birth. MPs are entitled to take paid maternity leave but are not automatically guaranteed any cover, meaning in practice many do not take leave.

(One backbench MP is now threatening legal action over MPs being excluded)

Its great that UK Ministers are finally going to get paid maternity leave - its a matter of basic equality and removing an exclusionary policy. But it speaks volumes that they're hoarding it for themselves, and denying it to others. Don't backbench MPs also deserve to be able to keep their jobs if they become parents? Doesn't everybody else? Clearly, the Tories don't think so. This needs to be followed up with a similar extension to every woman. Otherwise, its just further entrenching existing privilege and inequality.

A victory for women

Last night, the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020 was passed unanimously by Parliament. The Act updates the 1972 Equal Pay Act to create a bargaining framework for equal pay claims and hopefully avoid the need to take them to court. It doesn't go far enough - there's no pay transparency clause, for example - but should still be a massive improvement on the status quo,and can do down as something this government has actually achieved (I guess Winston didn't feel he could be that regressive and reactionary). And since it comes into force the day after it is signed, hopefully we'll see some quick improvement in the gender-pay gap.

68-51

The Abortion Legislation Bill has just passed its third reading, 68-51. NZ First MPs bailed because their referendum amendment didn't pass, but there were plenty of MPs to provide a majority without them. The bill is a long way from perfect - most significantly, it subjects pregnant people who need a late stage abortion to the wagging finger of society, just like the old law did - but it is a massive improvement. And it'll be in force within a couple of days.

There's still work to be done - both in making it truly a medical decision, and in establishing safe zones to protect pregnant people from harassment by bigots. But Parliament has done a good job today. Except for those who voted against: they're bigots, arseholes, or both, and we should de-elect them all.

81-39

The Abortion Legislation Bill passed its second reading last night, 81-39. Its a comfortable margin, and it bodes well for the bill passing. But which version of the bill? As presented to parliament it was a compromise, watered down from the Law Commission recommendations. It was further watered down by the select committee. Given the numbers, I think its unlikely that it will get any worse (though National's bigot MPs will no doubt put up amendments for the usual bullshit, as well as bad-faith measures intended purely to delay matters). But can it get better?

Fortunately, Jan Logie is on the case. She's put up SOPs to make abortion a purely medical decision and remove the bullshit hoops put in by politicians who want to shame women, to ensure remaining criminal clauses protect pregnant people rather than attempting to criminalise them, and to ensure that the law would apply to all pregnant people rather than just women. I'm hoping that there will be a majority for these amendments. Fortunately, the bigots with dead baby photos on parliament's lawn seem to be doing their best to ensure one.

Reported back

The Abortion Legislation Committee has reported back on the Abortion Legislation Bill and recommended that it be passed with some amendments. Unfortunately, the latter include even more hoops to jump through for those seeking abortions after 20 weeks, including a time-wasting requirement to consult a second doctor. No-one casually seeks an abortion that late, but those whose circumstances change or who discover an unforeseen medical problem will still have to endure the wagging finger of society over what is a basic medical decision. The committee has also strengthened the ability of "conscientious objectors" to obstruct the process and waste people's time, and explicitly allowed them to do so to victims of sexual violence. And that's just a bit shit IMHO.

I expect there will be a lot of amendments offered on this bill at the committee stage. Hopefully we'll see some MPs put up amendments to create the liberal regime the Law Commission recommended, rather than the worst option that the government chose (which has then been made worse by the select committee process). This bill was passed by a huge majority, and hopefully there's a majority within that for a far better law than the bullshit compromise the government is offering. And otherwise, well, this is still a massive improvement on the status quo, but it still stinks that reform has been watered down like this.

Protecting our history

Its Suffrage Day, the 126th anniversary of women winning the right to vote (but not stand in elections) in New Zealand. And to celebrate, the government has bought Kate Sheppard's house in Christchurch:

The government has bought Kate Sheppard's former home in Christchurch for more than $4 million.

The Ilam villa will be used as an educational centre for university research projects and school history trips, and made available for public access and events.

It was bought for $4.5 million at the start of September and it will be managed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga in partnership with the University of Canterbury.

Which is fair enough. Alongside the Treaty House at Waitangi, its one of our most important historical monuments, and something we should preserve as part of our national story. At the same time, it raises an obvious question: if the government can buy Kate Sheppard's house, what is stopping it from buying Ihumātao?

Labour chickenshitting on abortion

When she was standing for office, Jacinda Ardern promised she would take abortion out of the Crimes Act. And to be fair, there was some early action on that, with an immediate referral of the issue to the Law Commission to look at options for reform. But the Law Commission reported back in October, and since then, the government has done... nothing. And its still doing nothing today:

[T]he Government has yet to publicly reply to Law Commission advice released in October or confirm what changes it plans to put up to a conscience vote in Parliament.

Last year, Little said he expected to have a Bill ready to go in early 2019, but it stalled in talks with NZ First.

In May, he said an announcement was weeks away, after a breakthrough.

It was still weeks away on Tuesday.

"Constructive discussions have been ongoing regarding abortion law reform and I'm pleased with where it's at," Little said in a statement.

"I expect to have an announcement to make in a matter of weeks."

And he'll probably say the same thing in a couple of weeks as well. Because when it comes to actual action, Labour are chickenshits, unwilling to confront the bigots in their coalition partner, let alone their own caucus. But as the article points out, the bill will be a conscience vote, so it doesn't really matter what those bigots think. They'll vote against, others will vote for, and I'm confident that in today's social environment, it will pass. That is, if MP's are allowed to vote on it.

Meanwhile, from this, and climate change, and poverty, it seems that the value of the Prime Minister's campaign promises is zero. They're just pretty lies told to secure election - and voters should treat them accordingly.