Labour leader Chris Hipkins says the government is letting down women across New Zealand by revamping the country's pay equity laws.
Parliament is sitting under urgency today to change the law - expected to save the government billions of dollars.
Hipkins joined Nick Mills to discuss the move, as well as a National MP's proposal to ban under-16s from social media, and former Labour leader Andrew Little's run to be Wellington's next mayor.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk said, b.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Current temperatures a company of potty dour upper. Maybe he's
talking about himself. This is Chris sipkins favorite song, Something
So Strong Welcome.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
It's one of my favorite Kiwi tracks. I love the
positive vibe about it.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
So very keen, right, gosh, something so strong. Let's start
with something so strong. Yesterday, Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van
Valden announced she was completely revamping pay equity laws and
within twenty four hours it's in now. We had a
caller this morning because we talked about it obviously, Chris
and we had a caller and said, this is just
(00:58):
every union's trying to strong arm and get in and
get more pay for people. Nothing to do with pay
equity at all. It's you know, so they had to
do something about it.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Your thoughts, No, absolutely not. Basically, what this is hundreds
of thousands of women up and down the country at
the moment who are being paid less because of the agenda.
It's just inexcusable. There are thirty three claims in the
process they were working their way through in order to
get a pay would he claim. You have to actually
prove that you're being discriminated against because of your gender.
So there's a process for that. So you don't get
(01:28):
it automatically just by lodging a pake. Would he claim
you don't automatically get more pay. You have to prove
that there's been systemic undervaluation of your job based on
your gender. Those women were going through the process. Largely
women were going through that process, and then your government's
just basically come and change the law that says no,
no sor right women can be paid less than men.
I think that's outrageous.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Okay, do you think there is actually a problem that
needed to be sorted out. They had to do it.
But have they done it the wrong way or not?
Speaker 3 (01:54):
No, I don't think there was a problem at all.
So what Brook van Velden was saying yesterday was that, oh, well,
we think some of the jobs you know that are
being compared with each other aren't comparable jobs. If they
believe that, then they should change the jobs that are
being compared because ultimately the pay equity settlement process, it's
still a negotiated settlement. So through the settlement process, the
government can say, look, we don't think you're comparing like
(02:15):
for like, so we want to change the comparators. They
could go back and renegotiate that, they're choosing not to. Instead,
they're choosing just to cancel it. Let's be clear about
what this actually is. This is a way of them
saving billions of dollars to make the government's books look better,
and women across the country are going to be the
ones paying the price of that.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
You think it's all about the money, it's.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
All about the money suddenly, you know, only a few
months ago they were saying, oh, the pay equity process
is working really well, so successful in fact, that they
disbanded the pay Equity task Force that was overseeing these
claims on the basis that they thought the process was
working so well.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Or they knew this was laws coming in and they
were going to get rid of it.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
No, because they actually said that they thought the pay
equity process was working well, and now they're suddenly changing
their minds. What's changed. The only thing that's changed is
that they needed to find money where they could find
where they could save billions of dollars and this is it,
and women are the ones who are going to pay
the price.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Okay. Now, the thing that confused me about the whole
twenty four hours was the government used urgency. Now, your
government used that a lot. For me, urgency should be
something that's really really important and has to get through
really quickly.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
We didn't use any urgency anywhere near what this government
have done. Most of the law changes this government have passed,
they've used urgency for They're the only government, I think,
in New Zealand's history to hold that record. It has
been quite phenomenal. Their management of law changes has been
so haphazard. This one no one knew about it until
(03:37):
yesterday afternoon, and now suddenly it's about to become the law.
That's terrible process. They haven't even done the policy work
behind it. So they're saying, oh, there's a policy justification
for changing it, what is it because they haven't released
any evidence to demonstrate what it is.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Do you think that it's a deliberate go at the unions?
Speaker 1 (03:55):
No?
Speaker 3 (03:55):
I think it is totally about saving money. This is
about finding billions of dollars and several billion dollars they'll
save by doing What do you think they will say? Oh,
I'd probably a billion. If you look at you're talking
about hundreds of thousands of workers and so, and these
are hard working people who go out and they do
if we're talking about teachers, we're talking about people who
work in hospitals, rest homes, you know, people who do
(04:18):
often quite low paid work. They're basically now going to
be told, sorry, but you're not getting the pay you
deserve because the government Nicola Willis balancing a budget's more important.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
I'm interested in asking your opinion on the budget. What
do you think is going to happen. What do you
think is going to be the major change. I mean,
we're going to hear about it. We've been hearing about
it for three or four months, haven't we. So it's
not going to be any shock or is there?
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Well, I think this is the major shock, you know,
the idea that basically hard working women that's half the
population across the country being told, actually it's okay to
discriminate against you, it's okay for women to be paid
less than men for comparable work. I think they are
ultimately the ones who are going to be paying the
highest price in this budget. But we don't know what
else is going to be cut. Nicola Willis has promised
several billion dollars more cuts things like key we Savor,
(05:01):
for example. I understand that you know they might be
on the chopping block. She's failed to raw all that out,
you know, cutting government contributions to KEII Saver. That means
everybody who works hard for a living in savers in
their key we Saver account is going to find their
nest egg in retirement is going to be smaller.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
We know that the government books are tight. Are you
against them borrowing more to keep things flowing or do
you think that what they're trying to do is the
right tactic of cutting cutting cutting.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, one of the reasons the government books are so
tight is they borrowed twelve billion dollars extra last year
to pay for tax cuts, and that included things like
three billion dollars in tax cuts for landlords that wouldn't
have been my priority, two hundred million dollars of tax
cuts for tobacco companies that wouldn't have been my priority either.
They're making bad choices, and that's one of the reasons
the government books are in the state that they're in.
(05:45):
Let's be clear, there is a case for borrowing more
for investment. So if you think about the fact that
we've got a massive infrastructure deficit. We're talking schools, hospitals, roads,
water pipes. We're going to have to pay for that somehow.
There's a case for borrowing to pay for those things,
because those are things that ultimately we're going to get
twenty five, forty fifty years worth of life out of
The idea you pay for them more upfront is a
(06:07):
bit unrealistic. It's a bit like buying a house. You know,
you don't pay Most people don't pay cash for their house.
They borrow and they pay it off over the time
they're living in it. We've got to think about our
assets in the same way. So upgrading our assets, there's
a case to borrow the money to upgrade them.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
What do you think is going to be the major
takeout of the budget? I mean, you guys would be
sitting around talking. You'd have your own advisors saying this
is going down, this is going down. What do you
think the major take's going to be out of this budget?
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Well, I think one of the major takes that we've
already seen is that for a significant proportion of the population,
they're going to be worse off. This is a government
that promised to tackle the cost of living, and just
in the last twenty four hours they've said to half
of the population, sorry, no support for you. In fact,
we're going to justify you being paid less than what
you're Actually.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Are you pushing it a bit by saying half the population.
It's probably a lot less than half the population because
there's a whole lot of professional women out there working
that this is not going to have any any difference.
To make any difference to it.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
There is a major gender pay gap in New Zealand.
Women in almost every workplace get paid less than men
for doing comparable work. That was something we were working
to close as a government. Close that gap because I
don't I'm not going to tell my daughter that when
she grows up she has to be content with earning
less than her brother for doing the same work. It's
(07:20):
just not justifiable. This government has genned around in the
last twenty four hours and said, actually, we're okay with that.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Actually your government didn't change it though, did it. It didn't
give us any significant change.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
There were thirteen significant py equity settlements during the time
that we were government. The py equity gap I think
halved during the time that we were in government and
we were doing more. All of that has now ground
to a hold. In fact, they're going the other way.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
We've gotch receptins in the studio. Should we call him
the rumatucka MP or should we call him the Labor leader?
Either one. He's the same person, same person, same, very
very same person. Let's talk about the Australian election. Anthony Albanez.
He has been re elected with increased majority over the ditch,
partly attributed to what they are saying. Everyone seems to
(08:03):
be saying the Trump effect, which his rival, he'd Dunton,
was being compared to Trump. You know, strong, powerful, outspoken
man that most New Zealanders don't like a lot, and
I don't think a lot of Australians like could we
see something similar here in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I don't think it's quite as simple as calling it
the Trump effect, but I do think one of the
big factors in Australia was that Australians rejected populist to
visive politics. I think, you know, Dutton was offering a
very sort of toxic mix of turning people against each other,
picking winners, attacking others, and actually I think Elbow did
really well and basically saying that we're going to govern
(08:39):
for all Australians, whether you vote for us or not.
And I actually think that's what people were looking for.
I think they were looking for that stability and maturity.
I don't think I think, you know, Trump's been a
cautionary tail for people that if you start just you know,
voting for the people who are going to set it
people against each other, you just end up in a
downward spiral.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Anthony Albin easy to me when when he first got elected,
came across as sort of a like a mediocre media
and I keep thinking to myself, twenty million people, that's
the best they can get. He keeps performing.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
I think I was doing an outstanding job as Australia's
Prime minister. And I think the Australian people recognize that.
It's sobering to think that he is the first Australian
Prime minister since John Howard to win reelection so in
the last well, when John Howard lost in two thousand
and seven, since then, they've never had a prime minister
win more than one election in a row.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Phenomenal, right, so everyone tells me and Ethan who's my
so called political expert keeps telling me that governments lose
elections oppositions don't win them, So that still make it
difficult for you.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Oh, it's a combination. It's always a combination of factor
is that you can have governments losing elections but still
getting re elected if the opposition doesn't look like they
deserve to win. So I think there's always a combination
of stuff in there. I think, you know, you do
need to have people of a mind to change the government,
and then you've also got to look like your a
credible alternative.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Do you think that that kind of David Seymour, Winston
Peters that have kind of got that Trump feel to them,
do you reconnect what's going to go against him the election?
Speaker 3 (10:06):
What this government is one of the most pro Trump
governments around the world. If you look at all the
other governments standing up for their people against Donald Trump,
New Zealand government has taken a few loile it's just
cozy up to him. I think they should stand up
for New Zealanders. So if you just take the example
last week Trump threaten or was it this week Trump
threatening the film industry here in New Zealand, with a
one hundred percent tariff and we get nothing from this government. Crickets.
(10:30):
I think our government should be singing from the rooftops
about what a disaster that would be. They should be
going to Donald Trump and saying absolutely not, we're opposed
to this and will fight it. Nothing from our government
on it.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Or they're being very smart because everyone that goes up
against Trump gets clobbed again. So they're either one way
or the other, aren't they?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Well, what's the proof of that? You know, the people
who are staying quiet are getting no favorable treatment. Donald
Trump doesn't care about that stuff. He does not respect weakness.
He'll be looking at New Zealand at the moment going
what a bunch of suckers. They're not even willing to
criticize what I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
So do you make anything out of that election? Does it?
When you woke up, I said on the show, when
you woke up on Monday morning, you would have said, ah,
here we go. We've got a chance.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Oh of course. I mean I've thought we've had a
chance for quite some time now. I think this government
are doing a terrible job, but we're going to have
to make sure we're ready we're going to have to
make sure that we're providing a good, solid.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Credible alternative Australia. And Australia shows that people are pretty
happy with the incumbent government. So Canada, sorry, did I say, Ossie?
In Canada show that people are pretty happy with the
incumbent governments. I mean, does that make your job harder
or easier? Where does it leave you?
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Both of those are governments of the center left rather
than the center right. So I think what it shows
is that people are looking for a more inclusive style
of politics rather than the divisiveness that's being offered by
the populist right.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
But they're a vote for non change though.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
No, not necessarily most exemplified by Donald Trump's populist right
and people rejecting that. But actually, if you look at it,
even look at here in New Zealand and the polling,
the opposition parties are outpolling the gun more than underpolling
them since the beginning of this year, I think New
Zealanders are rejecting the style of divisive politics this government
have adopted. As well.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
You mentioned the film industry before, and I want to
ask you about this because I mean, one hundred percent
tariff on foreign made films. We on this show because
obviously we're a Wellington showing film industry belongs in Wellington
and we love and known it. We're all but a
little bit concerned. You think the government should do more.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Absolutely, Look, let's be clear, a tariff on New Zealand
films would be an unmitigated disaster for New Zealand and
it would be an absolute body blow for the Wellington
economy because of course the film industry is such a
big part of it. You know, look at films like
what does it minecraft? I went and saw that with
my kids over the last school holidays, made year in
New Zealand. Outstanding film that sort of stuff. No more
(12:54):
of that. If Donald Trump introduced as tariff's I think
the New Zealand government's got to stand up and say no,
this is not okay. When we're absolutely opposed to this
and yet they're doing nothing.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Will that make any difference at all?
Speaker 3 (13:05):
I think the New Zealand government should fight for New
Zealanders and they're not willing to do that. It's not
working to our benefit. We're still being clobbed the same
as you know, as every other country is. I think
that we've got to stand up for Kiwis.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Also want to talk to you about the social media
ban now. We have on the show said that we
should be following Australia's lead on this and we should
be banning it for under sixteen. So we're thinking that
it's not a good idea. Your thoughts on it.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
I'm worried that. I mean, I think it's a legitimate
discussion to have. I am a bit worried that the government,
desperately trying to distract from their pay equity debacle yesterday
rushed out a members bill which is poorly drafted that
is potentially discrediting what is quite a significant discussion we
should have. I'm really concerned about the risk to kids
online at the moment, not just through social media, not
(13:53):
just through you know, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook, but through
video games like roeblocks, which also have a social media
component within them. He's a really kind of confronting statistic.
I think one in four kids under the age of
twelve have been exposed to pornography online. When you get
up to the age of seventeen, it's something like two
thirds of kids have seen pornography online and it's often violent,
(14:18):
misogynistic pornography. That should be a wake up call to
all of us to say, we've got to do more
to keep our kids safe.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
What about the violence that they can see online? I
mean that also must be a concern well.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
As violence, and it's also sexual violence. What we're seeing
now is more reports of kids, you know, in their
early sexual relationships, doing stuff that's really nasty and unhealthy
because they think it's normal because that's what they've been
exposed to online. It's not normal. So I think we've
got to do more. It's got to start with education though.
So yeah, I think we should have a debate about
whether we should have an age restriction on social.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Well why did you not do it? Because I mean
there was a lot of talk about it when Australia
first made the decision, and you guys kept pretty quiet
about it. What was the rationale behind that.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
It's an issue that's I think become more of a
conversation and last two years, you know, it was just
starting to become a conversation. When I was Prime Minister,
we didn't have time, frankly, to even have a look
at it. I think it is a legitimate conversation to
have now. But you've got to start with education though,
because let's be clear, I think we've all got to
be realistic. I watched my kids, you know, in their
digital devices. Kids find ways round restrictions very quickly and
(15:25):
very easily. Their bloody's heavy. Education's got to be the first.
But you've got to teach kids about the risks. You've
got to teach kids about how they can keep themselves safe.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Another thing that that kind of annoyed me a little bit.
And now I'm reading that the numbers are horrific about
vape shops being so close to schools. Now, there was
talk about that when you were in government, and you
whenknew a Prime minister of actually making a law that
not allow it, and there was talk of it. But
we're not taking vaping seriously as a country, are we now.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
I think this government have totally taken their eye off
the ball when it comes to vaping.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
But I mean to be fair that you guys did too.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
Yeah, but we put forward a plan during the election
campaign that would have significantly reduced the number of outlets
that could sell vapes. Now, I know a lot of
the dairy owners mounted very strong campaign against that. The
government ultimately went with the dairy owners. I don't think
that's the right way to go.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
To be fair, you guys, when you were in government,
I don't want to keep looking back or get a
sore neck. But had the opportunity to limit them, to
police them, to change them, but you just let them
go to I.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Think we were too slow. I think we did some
stuff around restricting the number of flavors available, you know,
doing away with the disposable vapes, things like that. It
wasn't it. In the end, it wasn't enough. We should
have done more. We would have done more by now,
so I wouldn't have spent the last year and a
half just admiring the problem. I would have done something
about it. The problem continues to get worse on a
daily basis, and the government are doing nothing, nothing at all, nothing.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
At all, nothing at all, nothing with the tobacco. Nothing
it with tobacco.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
They're making it easier. So they reversed the changes that
we had made that would have made that would have
significantly reduced the number of New Zealander smoking.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
And now we're hearing the black markets out of control
by gangs and ill people.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Well, the biggest I think area where gangs are making
them money at the moment's myth and feedamine use has
doubled in New Zealand over the last year under this government.
You know, they talk about being tough on crime and
cracking down on gangs. The gangs have never been making
more money than they are now and they're making it
by peddling myth and the government aren't doing enough.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Okay, let's finish our little chat with Andrew Little. Spent
the weekend in New Plymouth. Asked a few movers and
shakers up there about Andrew Little, and you know that
they all like him. They all said he's a good
guy and you know, whether he'd be a great mayor
they were. There wasn't anyone that said, you guys are
(17:42):
making the right decision.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
I think Andrew's going to be a great mayor for Wellington.
I think he's just what Wellington needs, you know. I
think he'll work on unifying that council. He's a collaborator,
so he'll bring people together. The fact they've already got
people from the National Party side of local body politics
and Wellington saying yeah, we think Andrew Little is the
right man for the job.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
I think, let's be a little bit honest there. If
my Golden Labrador stood for the mayor, A lot of
people around saying that that would be a good decision too.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
But look, I think Andrew's going to be able to
bring the council together. And I think regardless of party affiliation,
I think that's Wellington's really Wellingtonians really want to see
that now. They want to see the council knuckle down,
tackle the big issues, look like they can function as
a team. And I think Andrew's the guy who's going
to be able to achieve that.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Have you last time we spoke, you hadn't had personal
contact with him. Have you had personal contact with him?
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Oh? I can't remember when the last time I was
I spoke to him. It would have been within the
last few weeks. You know, I'm fully supportive of him.
You know, he'll run his own campaign. It's not going
to be a campaign run by me. You know, it's
run by Labor people. Though it's run by Labour people,
but our local government campaigns are run separately from our
parliamentary campaigns.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Will you have any involvement in it?
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Oh? If he wants me to help, I will, But
you know, ultimately, I know I know Andrew well, and
I imagine that he'll want to run his campaign the
way he wants to run it, and I think that's
one of the reasons why he'll be a very good mayor.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
What do you make a Tory Faro's legacy? O mean,
I know that you're not going to come out and
say what you really think, but what do you think
of your legacy?
Speaker 3 (19:08):
I think ultimately well, Antonians are going to be able
to judge that, and the fullness of time. Sometimes you
need to get a bit further away from contemporary events
to fully judge someone's contribution. I think that's probably the
case with Toy.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
How's the work on the tax plan?
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Oh yeah, we're plugging away at it. We'll have a
plan before the election.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Still waiting it?
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Oh, I mean, the government's still got two more budgets
to deliver. And you know, what we know now is
that we can't slash our way to greater prosperity as
a country. We're going to have to find a way
of paying for all the things New Zealanders want the
government to deliver, and tax is a conversation we need
to have there. Our tax system is very unfair at
the moment.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Is the actual work going on about it, or you
just put it to the back and saying or we
know it's something that we've got to do and we'll
bring it out when we need to.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
There's a lot of work going on at the moment
just making sure that when we do announce a tax policy,
we can answer all the questions on it, we can
explain it, and we can show why it's fairer than
what we're doing. Now.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
You personally seem to be on in the media a
bit more than you used to be. I mean, every
time any decisions ever made with government, now bang, it's
straight to you. You're you're involved more. Is that deliberate?
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Well, these guys are halfway through their term. I think
when there is a change of government, you have to
recognize that you've lost and you've got to give the
new government, you know, a bit of an opportunity to
show the public what they're made of. They've had that
opportunity now and I haven't seen anything much that redeems
them to the New Zealand public. I think a lot
of keyw Weis are feeling betrayed by them. You know,
they're feeling like they're not getting what they've voted for,
and so now our job in the next eighty months
(20:33):
is to make sure they know they've got an alternative.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
How comfortable are you with your leadership and your team?
Speaker 3 (20:38):
One hundred percent? Not a question, you know. I'm absolutely
confident that I'll be leading the team through to the
election campaign and beyond.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Right, So if you missed out everything you know, and
I lose my money. If you do missout, will you
still stay there? Will you still plan again? Or will
you that then you really look at it.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Oh, look, I'm standing again for the next election. That
means I'm signing up for the next three years, win
or lose. But I'm absolutely going into it to win, right.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Thank you as always, Gosh, I know that he's always
very positive. You're a very positive man.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
It's great course, of course, you got to look in
this very dark world at the moment. You've got to
find ways to be positive, otherwise it has just dragged
you down.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
I love it. I like your positively too. I love
your positivity. Labor leader and Riemattucker MP Chris Skippins comes
in and has a bit of a chat to Wellington
Mornings about once a month when he has time. We
appreciate him coming in having a chat and we wish
him well, not too much well because remember everybody, I've
got a thousand dollars to charity bet with mister Hipkins
that he has bet is that he's going to be
(21:41):
Prime Minister at the next election. Gosh, I'd better start saving.
I better start saving now. Alberezi's anything to go by.
Thank you, Chris, Appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am week days,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk said, b.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Current temperatures a company of potty dour upper. Maybe he's
talking about himself. This is Chris sipkins favorite song, Something
So Strong Welcome.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
It's one of my favorite Kiwi tracks. I love the
positive vibe about it.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
So very keen, right, gosh, something so strong. Let's start
with something so strong. Yesterday, Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van
Valden announced she was completely revamping pay equity laws and
within twenty four hours it's in now. We had a
caller this morning because we talked about it obviously, Chris
and we had a caller and said, this is just
(00:58):
every union's trying to strong arm and get in and
get more pay for people. Nothing to do with pay
equity at all. It's you know, so they had to
do something about it.
Speaker 3 (01:07):
Your thoughts, No, absolutely not. Basically, what this is hundreds
of thousands of women up and down the country at
the moment who are being paid less because of the agenda.
It's just inexcusable. There are thirty three claims in the
process they were working their way through in order to
get a pay would he claim. You have to actually
prove that you're being discriminated against because of your gender.
So there's a process for that. So you don't get
(01:28):
it automatically just by lodging a pake. Would he claim
you don't automatically get more pay. You have to prove
that there's been systemic undervaluation of your job based on
your gender. Those women were going through the process. Largely
women were going through that process, and then your government's
just basically come and change the law that says no,
no sor right women can be paid less than men.
I think that's outrageous.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Okay, do you think there is actually a problem that
needed to be sorted out. They had to do it.
But have they done it the wrong way or not?
Speaker 3 (01:54):
No, I don't think there was a problem at all.
So what Brook van Velden was saying yesterday was that, oh, well,
we think some of the jobs you know that are
being compared with each other aren't comparable jobs. If they
believe that, then they should change the jobs that are
being compared because ultimately the pay equity settlement process, it's
still a negotiated settlement. So through the settlement process, the
government can say, look, we don't think you're comparing like
(02:15):
for like, so we want to change the comparators. They
could go back and renegotiate that, they're choosing not to. Instead,
they're choosing just to cancel it. Let's be clear about
what this actually is. This is a way of them
saving billions of dollars to make the government's books look better,
and women across the country are going to be the
ones paying the price of that.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
You think it's all about the money, it's.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
All about the money suddenly, you know, only a few
months ago they were saying, oh, the pay equity process
is working really well, so successful in fact, that they
disbanded the pay Equity task Force that was overseeing these
claims on the basis that they thought the process was
working so well.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Or they knew this was laws coming in and they
were going to get rid of it.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
No, because they actually said that they thought the pay
equity process was working well, and now they're suddenly changing
their minds. What's changed. The only thing that's changed is
that they needed to find money where they could find
where they could save billions of dollars and this is it,
and women are the ones who are going to pay
the price.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Okay. Now, the thing that confused me about the whole
twenty four hours was the government used urgency. Now, your
government used that a lot. For me, urgency should be
something that's really really important and has to get through
really quickly.
Speaker 3 (03:17):
We didn't use any urgency anywhere near what this government
have done. Most of the law changes this government have passed,
they've used urgency for They're the only government, I think,
in New Zealand's history to hold that record. It has
been quite phenomenal. Their management of law changes has been
so haphazard. This one no one knew about it until
(03:37):
yesterday afternoon, and now suddenly it's about to become the law.
That's terrible process. They haven't even done the policy work
behind it. So they're saying, oh, there's a policy justification
for changing it, what is it because they haven't released
any evidence to demonstrate what it is.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Do you think that it's a deliberate go at the unions?
Speaker 1 (03:55):
No?
Speaker 3 (03:55):
I think it is totally about saving money. This is
about finding billions of dollars and several billion dollars they'll
save by doing What do you think they will say? Oh,
I'd probably a billion. If you look at you're talking
about hundreds of thousands of workers and so, and these
are hard working people who go out and they do
if we're talking about teachers, we're talking about people who
work in hospitals, rest homes, you know, people who do
(04:18):
often quite low paid work. They're basically now going to
be told, sorry, but you're not getting the pay you
deserve because the government Nicola Willis balancing a budget's more important.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
I'm interested in asking your opinion on the budget. What
do you think is going to happen. What do you
think is going to be the major change. I mean,
we're going to hear about it. We've been hearing about
it for three or four months, haven't we. So it's
not going to be any shock or is there?
Speaker 3 (04:39):
Well, I think this is the major shock, you know,
the idea that basically hard working women that's half the
population across the country being told, actually it's okay to
discriminate against you, it's okay for women to be paid
less than men for comparable work. I think they are
ultimately the ones who are going to be paying the
highest price in this budget. But we don't know what
else is going to be cut. Nicola Willis has promised
several billion dollars more cuts things like key we Savor,
(05:01):
for example. I understand that you know they might be
on the chopping block. She's failed to raw all that out,
you know, cutting government contributions to KEII Saver. That means
everybody who works hard for a living in savers in
their key we Saver account is going to find their
nest egg in retirement is going to be smaller.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
We know that the government books are tight. Are you
against them borrowing more to keep things flowing or do
you think that what they're trying to do is the
right tactic of cutting cutting cutting.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
Well, one of the reasons the government books are so
tight is they borrowed twelve billion dollars extra last year
to pay for tax cuts, and that included things like
three billion dollars in tax cuts for landlords that wouldn't
have been my priority, two hundred million dollars of tax
cuts for tobacco companies that wouldn't have been my priority either.
They're making bad choices, and that's one of the reasons
the government books are in the state that they're in.
(05:45):
Let's be clear, there is a case for borrowing more
for investment. So if you think about the fact that
we've got a massive infrastructure deficit. We're talking schools, hospitals, roads,
water pipes. We're going to have to pay for that somehow.
There's a case for borrowing to pay for those things,
because those are things that ultimately we're going to get
twenty five, forty fifty years worth of life out of
The idea you pay for them more upfront is a
(06:07):
bit unrealistic. It's a bit like buying a house. You know,
you don't pay Most people don't pay cash for their house.
They borrow and they pay it off over the time
they're living in it. We've got to think about our
assets in the same way. So upgrading our assets, there's
a case to borrow the money to upgrade them.
Speaker 2 (06:20):
What do you think is going to be the major
takeout of the budget? I mean, you guys would be
sitting around talking. You'd have your own advisors saying this
is going down, this is going down. What do you
think the major take's going to be out of this budget?
Speaker 3 (06:32):
Well, I think one of the major takes that we've
already seen is that for a significant proportion of the population,
they're going to be worse off. This is a government
that promised to tackle the cost of living, and just
in the last twenty four hours they've said to half
of the population, sorry, no support for you. In fact,
we're going to justify you being paid less than what
you're Actually.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Are you pushing it a bit by saying half the population.
It's probably a lot less than half the population because
there's a whole lot of professional women out there working
that this is not going to have any any difference.
To make any difference to it.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
There is a major gender pay gap in New Zealand.
Women in almost every workplace get paid less than men
for doing comparable work. That was something we were working
to close as a government. Close that gap because I
don't I'm not going to tell my daughter that when
she grows up she has to be content with earning
less than her brother for doing the same work. It's
(07:20):
just not justifiable. This government has genned around in the
last twenty four hours and said, actually, we're okay with that.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Actually your government didn't change it though, did it. It didn't
give us any significant change.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
There were thirteen significant py equity settlements during the time
that we were government. The py equity gap I think
halved during the time that we were in government and
we were doing more. All of that has now ground
to a hold. In fact, they're going the other way.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
We've gotch receptins in the studio. Should we call him
the rumatucka MP or should we call him the Labor leader?
Either one. He's the same person, same person, same, very
very same person. Let's talk about the Australian election. Anthony Albanez.
He has been re elected with increased majority over the ditch,
partly attributed to what they are saying. Everyone seems to
(08:03):
be saying the Trump effect, which his rival, he'd Dunton,
was being compared to Trump. You know, strong, powerful, outspoken
man that most New Zealanders don't like a lot, and
I don't think a lot of Australians like could we
see something similar here in New Zealand.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I don't think it's quite as simple as calling it
the Trump effect, but I do think one of the
big factors in Australia was that Australians rejected populist to
visive politics. I think, you know, Dutton was offering a
very sort of toxic mix of turning people against each other,
picking winners, attacking others, and actually I think Elbow did
really well and basically saying that we're going to govern
(08:39):
for all Australians, whether you vote for us or not.
And I actually think that's what people were looking for.
I think they were looking for that stability and maturity.
I don't think I think, you know, Trump's been a
cautionary tail for people that if you start just you know,
voting for the people who are going to set it
people against each other, you just end up in a
downward spiral.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Anthony Albin easy to me when when he first got elected,
came across as sort of a like a mediocre media
and I keep thinking to myself, twenty million people, that's
the best they can get. He keeps performing.
Speaker 3 (09:07):
I think I was doing an outstanding job as Australia's
Prime minister. And I think the Australian people recognize that.
It's sobering to think that he is the first Australian
Prime minister since John Howard to win reelection so in
the last well, when John Howard lost in two thousand
and seven, since then, they've never had a prime minister
win more than one election in a row.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Phenomenal, right, so everyone tells me and Ethan who's my
so called political expert keeps telling me that governments lose
elections oppositions don't win them, So that still make it
difficult for you.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Oh, it's a combination. It's always a combination of factor
is that you can have governments losing elections but still
getting re elected if the opposition doesn't look like they
deserve to win. So I think there's always a combination
of stuff in there. I think, you know, you do
need to have people of a mind to change the government,
and then you've also got to look like your a
credible alternative.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Do you think that that kind of David Seymour, Winston
Peters that have kind of got that Trump feel to them,
do you reconnect what's going to go against him the election?
Speaker 3 (10:06):
What this government is one of the most pro Trump
governments around the world. If you look at all the
other governments standing up for their people against Donald Trump,
New Zealand government has taken a few loile it's just
cozy up to him. I think they should stand up
for New Zealanders. So if you just take the example
last week Trump threaten or was it this week Trump
threatening the film industry here in New Zealand, with a
one hundred percent tariff and we get nothing from this government. Crickets.
(10:30):
I think our government should be singing from the rooftops
about what a disaster that would be. They should be
going to Donald Trump and saying absolutely not, we're opposed
to this and will fight it. Nothing from our government
on it.
Speaker 2 (10:40):
Or they're being very smart because everyone that goes up
against Trump gets clobbed again. So they're either one way
or the other, aren't they?
Speaker 3 (10:47):
Well, what's the proof of that? You know, the people
who are staying quiet are getting no favorable treatment. Donald
Trump doesn't care about that stuff. He does not respect weakness.
He'll be looking at New Zealand at the moment going
what a bunch of suckers. They're not even willing to
criticize what I'm doing.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
So do you make anything out of that election? Does it?
When you woke up, I said on the show, when
you woke up on Monday morning, you would have said, ah,
here we go. We've got a chance.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
Oh of course. I mean I've thought we've had a
chance for quite some time now. I think this government
are doing a terrible job, but we're going to have
to make sure we're ready we're going to have to
make sure that we're providing a good, solid.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Credible alternative Australia. And Australia shows that people are pretty
happy with the incumbent government. So Canada, sorry, did I say, Ossie?
In Canada show that people are pretty happy with the
incumbent governments. I mean, does that make your job harder
or easier? Where does it leave you?
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Both of those are governments of the center left rather
than the center right. So I think what it shows
is that people are looking for a more inclusive style
of politics rather than the divisiveness that's being offered by
the populist right.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
But they're a vote for non change though.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
No, not necessarily most exemplified by Donald Trump's populist right
and people rejecting that. But actually, if you look at it,
even look at here in New Zealand and the polling,
the opposition parties are outpolling the gun more than underpolling
them since the beginning of this year, I think New
Zealanders are rejecting the style of divisive politics this government
have adopted. As well.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
You mentioned the film industry before, and I want to
ask you about this because I mean, one hundred percent
tariff on foreign made films. We on this show because
obviously we're a Wellington showing film industry belongs in Wellington
and we love and known it. We're all but a
little bit concerned. You think the government should do more.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Absolutely, Look, let's be clear, a tariff on New Zealand
films would be an unmitigated disaster for New Zealand and
it would be an absolute body blow for the Wellington
economy because of course the film industry is such a
big part of it. You know, look at films like
what does it minecraft? I went and saw that with
my kids over the last school holidays, made year in
New Zealand. Outstanding film that sort of stuff. No more
(12:54):
of that. If Donald Trump introduced as tariff's I think
the New Zealand government's got to stand up and say no,
this is not okay. When we're absolutely opposed to this
and yet they're doing nothing.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Will that make any difference at all?
Speaker 3 (13:05):
I think the New Zealand government should fight for New
Zealanders and they're not willing to do that. It's not
working to our benefit. We're still being clobbed the same
as you know, as every other country is. I think
that we've got to stand up for Kiwis.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Also want to talk to you about the social media
ban now. We have on the show said that we
should be following Australia's lead on this and we should
be banning it for under sixteen. So we're thinking that
it's not a good idea. Your thoughts on it.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
I'm worried that. I mean, I think it's a legitimate
discussion to have. I am a bit worried that the government,
desperately trying to distract from their pay equity debacle yesterday
rushed out a members bill which is poorly drafted that
is potentially discrediting what is quite a significant discussion we
should have. I'm really concerned about the risk to kids
online at the moment, not just through social media, not
(13:53):
just through you know, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook, but through
video games like roeblocks, which also have a social media
component within them. He's a really kind of confronting statistic.
I think one in four kids under the age of
twelve have been exposed to pornography online. When you get
up to the age of seventeen, it's something like two
thirds of kids have seen pornography online and it's often violent,
(14:18):
misogynistic pornography. That should be a wake up call to
all of us to say, we've got to do more
to keep our kids safe.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
What about the violence that they can see online? I
mean that also must be a concern well.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
As violence, and it's also sexual violence. What we're seeing
now is more reports of kids, you know, in their
early sexual relationships, doing stuff that's really nasty and unhealthy
because they think it's normal because that's what they've been
exposed to online. It's not normal. So I think we've
got to do more. It's got to start with education though.
So yeah, I think we should have a debate about
whether we should have an age restriction on social.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
Well why did you not do it? Because I mean
there was a lot of talk about it when Australia
first made the decision, and you guys kept pretty quiet
about it. What was the rationale behind that.
Speaker 3 (15:03):
It's an issue that's I think become more of a
conversation and last two years, you know, it was just
starting to become a conversation. When I was Prime Minister,
we didn't have time, frankly, to even have a look
at it. I think it is a legitimate conversation to
have now. But you've got to start with education though,
because let's be clear, I think we've all got to
be realistic. I watched my kids, you know, in their
digital devices. Kids find ways round restrictions very quickly and
(15:25):
very easily. Their bloody's heavy. Education's got to be the first.
But you've got to teach kids about the risks. You've
got to teach kids about how they can keep themselves safe.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Another thing that that kind of annoyed me a little bit.
And now I'm reading that the numbers are horrific about
vape shops being so close to schools. Now, there was
talk about that when you were in government, and you
whenknew a Prime minister of actually making a law that
not allow it, and there was talk of it. But
we're not taking vaping seriously as a country, are we now.
Speaker 3 (15:53):
I think this government have totally taken their eye off
the ball when it comes to vaping.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
But I mean to be fair that you guys did too.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
Yeah, but we put forward a plan during the election
campaign that would have significantly reduced the number of outlets
that could sell vapes. Now, I know a lot of
the dairy owners mounted very strong campaign against that. The
government ultimately went with the dairy owners. I don't think
that's the right way to go.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
To be fair, you guys, when you were in government,
I don't want to keep looking back or get a
sore neck. But had the opportunity to limit them, to
police them, to change them, but you just let them
go to I.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Think we were too slow. I think we did some
stuff around restricting the number of flavors available, you know,
doing away with the disposable vapes, things like that. It
wasn't it. In the end, it wasn't enough. We should
have done more. We would have done more by now,
so I wouldn't have spent the last year and a
half just admiring the problem. I would have done something
about it. The problem continues to get worse on a
daily basis, and the government are doing nothing, nothing at all, nothing.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
At all, nothing at all, nothing with the tobacco. Nothing
it with tobacco.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
They're making it easier. So they reversed the changes that
we had made that would have made that would have
significantly reduced the number of New Zealander smoking.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
And now we're hearing the black markets out of control
by gangs and ill people.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Well, the biggest I think area where gangs are making
them money at the moment's myth and feedamine use has
doubled in New Zealand over the last year under this government.
You know, they talk about being tough on crime and
cracking down on gangs. The gangs have never been making
more money than they are now and they're making it
by peddling myth and the government aren't doing enough.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Okay, let's finish our little chat with Andrew Little. Spent
the weekend in New Plymouth. Asked a few movers and
shakers up there about Andrew Little, and you know that
they all like him. They all said he's a good
guy and you know, whether he'd be a great mayor
they were. There wasn't anyone that said, you guys are
(17:42):
making the right decision.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
I think Andrew's going to be a great mayor for Wellington.
I think he's just what Wellington needs, you know. I
think he'll work on unifying that council. He's a collaborator,
so he'll bring people together. The fact they've already got
people from the National Party side of local body politics
and Wellington saying yeah, we think Andrew Little is the
right man for the job.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
I think, let's be a little bit honest there. If
my Golden Labrador stood for the mayor, A lot of
people around saying that that would be a good decision too.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
But look, I think Andrew's going to be able to
bring the council together. And I think regardless of party affiliation,
I think that's Wellington's really Wellingtonians really want to see
that now. They want to see the council knuckle down,
tackle the big issues, look like they can function as
a team. And I think Andrew's the guy who's going
to be able to achieve that.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Have you last time we spoke, you hadn't had personal
contact with him. Have you had personal contact with him?
Speaker 3 (18:30):
Oh? I can't remember when the last time I was
I spoke to him. It would have been within the
last few weeks. You know, I'm fully supportive of him.
You know, he'll run his own campaign. It's not going
to be a campaign run by me. You know, it's
run by Labor people. Though it's run by Labour people,
but our local government campaigns are run separately from our
parliamentary campaigns.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Will you have any involvement in it?
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Oh? If he wants me to help, I will, But
you know, ultimately, I know I know Andrew well, and
I imagine that he'll want to run his campaign the
way he wants to run it, and I think that's
one of the reasons why he'll be a very good mayor.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
What do you make a Tory Faro's legacy? O mean,
I know that you're not going to come out and
say what you really think, but what do you think
of your legacy?
Speaker 3 (19:08):
I think ultimately well, Antonians are going to be able
to judge that, and the fullness of time. Sometimes you
need to get a bit further away from contemporary events
to fully judge someone's contribution. I think that's probably the
case with Toy.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
How's the work on the tax plan?
Speaker 3 (19:21):
Oh yeah, we're plugging away at it. We'll have a
plan before the election.
Speaker 2 (19:26):
Still waiting it?
Speaker 3 (19:27):
Oh, I mean, the government's still got two more budgets
to deliver. And you know, what we know now is
that we can't slash our way to greater prosperity as
a country. We're going to have to find a way
of paying for all the things New Zealanders want the
government to deliver, and tax is a conversation we need
to have there. Our tax system is very unfair at
the moment.
Speaker 2 (19:44):
Is the actual work going on about it, or you
just put it to the back and saying or we
know it's something that we've got to do and we'll
bring it out when we need to.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
There's a lot of work going on at the moment
just making sure that when we do announce a tax policy,
we can answer all the questions on it, we can
explain it, and we can show why it's fairer than
what we're doing. Now.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
You personally seem to be on in the media a
bit more than you used to be. I mean, every
time any decisions ever made with government, now bang, it's
straight to you. You're you're involved more. Is that deliberate?
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Well, these guys are halfway through their term. I think
when there is a change of government, you have to
recognize that you've lost and you've got to give the
new government, you know, a bit of an opportunity to
show the public what they're made of. They've had that
opportunity now and I haven't seen anything much that redeems
them to the New Zealand public. I think a lot
of keyw Weis are feeling betrayed by them. You know,
they're feeling like they're not getting what they've voted for,
and so now our job in the next eighty months
(20:33):
is to make sure they know they've got an alternative.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
How comfortable are you with your leadership and your team?
Speaker 3 (20:38):
One hundred percent? Not a question, you know. I'm absolutely
confident that I'll be leading the team through to the
election campaign and beyond.
Speaker 2 (20:46):
Right, So if you missed out everything you know, and
I lose my money. If you do missout, will you
still stay there? Will you still plan again? Or will
you that then you really look at it.
Speaker 3 (20:57):
Oh, look, I'm standing again for the next election. That
means I'm signing up for the next three years, win
or lose. But I'm absolutely going into it to win, right.
Speaker 2 (21:04):
Thank you as always, Gosh, I know that he's always
very positive. You're a very positive man.
Speaker 3 (21:10):
It's great course, of course, you got to look in
this very dark world at the moment. You've got to
find ways to be positive, otherwise it has just dragged
you down.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
I love it. I like your positively too. I love
your positivity. Labor leader and Riemattucker MP Chris Skippins comes
in and has a bit of a chat to Wellington
Mornings about once a month when he has time. We
appreciate him coming in having a chat and we wish
him well, not too much well because remember everybody, I've
got a thousand dollars to charity bet with mister Hipkins
that he has bet is that he's going to be
(21:41):
Prime Minister at the next election. Gosh, I'd better start saving.
I better start saving now. Alberezi's anything to go by.
Thank you, Chris, Appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills, listen live
to news talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am week days,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.