May 7, 2025 • 21 mins
The government has completely revamped the law surrounding pay equity - a move the opposition says was designed to save money. Was it?
Also, is it okay for Ministers to conduct official business via their personal email accounts? Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says he is "relaxed" about it.
To answer those questions, Labour's health and Wellington issues spokesperson Ayesha Verrall and National's Otaki MP Tim Costley joined Nick Mills for Politics Thursday.
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 focusing in on the issues
that matter politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings, news Talk said bhine,
can you make your decision.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Joining us politics Thursday? This week is labor, health and
Wellington's issues. Spokeswoman A SHAVERA, good morning, Ice morning. Will
Hew you going? I shure you're right, Yeah, I'm really well.
Tough day yesterday in the House.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Wasn't it wasn't pretty pretty sad to see see all
that repeal of our pay equity legislation and the impact
that we'll have on women.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Okay, A National's o Tachi MP term costly. Good morning, Tim.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
Here, good morning, that can coome oning.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
I shout right, let's start. Let's start the show this
with this week. What happened yesterday Workplace Relations Minister Brooke
van Valden an out sea was completely revamping pay equity
laws and it all happened under urgency, with almost no notice,
all in twenty four hours. Tim National supported this law
(01:23):
when it was passing twenty twenty. What the hell's changed?
Speaker 4 (01:27):
Well, we still support pay equity and fundamentally rarely support
equal pay. So equal pay hasn't changed through this, just
to be really clear upfront, and we still support pay equity.
We believe that the system in place needs to be robust,
it needs to be sustainable, and we need to make
sure that we're targeting it towards where there is a
genuine sex space difference, in other words, where men and
(01:50):
women in comparable trades are being paid differently, and not
confuse it or blur it with a number of other
factors like the consumer Price index and things like that.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Should you really actually think there's a problem here that
needed to be fixed, you know, certain jobs being compared
what they would compared a healthcare worker to a mechanic
or something. I mean, what's going on here.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
National is cutting women's pay. That's what the changes that
came through yesterday do. And we know that's the case
because David Seymour said this will help rebalance the budget.
It's pretty tough for New Zealand's women having to pay
the price for an unbalanced budget from the government. Look,
there are a lot of technical comparisons and the pay
equity legislation, but as it was, it brought through very
(02:37):
meaningful uplifts in people's wages I saw us losing nurses
overseas when I was Minister of Health. The pay equity
settlement meant we were able to retain al nurses at
unprecedented levels because of that. So they make meaning for
uplifts in women's salaries.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
And it did cost us billions of dollars. Could we
afford it?
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Well?
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Could we afford to have no nurses? That's what was
happening before your recall. After COVID we were rarely struggling
though that pay equity settlement brought the wage up to
what those women were entitled to pay. Equity is about
fear evaluation of women's work.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Tim This is all about the money, isn't it. We
heard David Seymour say so. I mean he said he's
just saved billions of dollars.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Oh look, and the Prime Minister's and knowledge there will
be some savings through that, But that's not what it's about.
This is about a robust framework actually makes a good point,
and that retaining personnel nurses but also things like police
officers and a number of other teachers. Of course, increasing
salaries is really helpful for that. That's why we're so
focused on growth. That's why we're so focused on the
(03:43):
cost of living. That's why we delivered the text release
last year that Labor voted against. That was actually all
good things for our nurses and our teachers. But what's
not helpful, I think, and what this legislation change has improved,
is where there were really confusing comparators. Where you're where
you're comparing an administrative clerk to a fisheries officer, when
(04:04):
you're comparing libraryans to transport engineers. That's not necessarily the
best way to do this. So what we want to
do is make sure we're not looking at really broad,
confusing other factors in the market. We're looking at where
is there genuine sex based discrimination and where ever, though
those cases are present, they can still go through. There
(04:26):
is still a pathway to go through. It is very
clear what that pathway is now, and the vast majority
of existing claims don't change.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
A couple of questions here, tim Firstly, why did no
one know it was about to happen? And why was
it passed under urgency? I mean, was that really necessary?
Speaker 4 (04:45):
So I think in these situations sometimes one of the
most important things that I hear from people is the
need for clarity and if we had a two track
system where there was some claims going through under an
old system, some under a new one, you would introduce inequality.
So there was a need to just be very be fair,
be very clear about what the rules were, and to
make a clean cut for from the old confusing system
(05:08):
to one that focused on delivering pay equity where there
is sex based discrimination.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
I said, this is down to one thing, to clean money.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
That's right. David Seymour said that this has saved Nikola
Willis's budget. The government is prioritizing their tax cuts and
other promises over the wages of women.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Tim.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Yeah, and can I just say that, I mean, this
isn't saving the budget. The Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis,
has been very clear that that is not the reason
for this and that the budget adds up, and you know,
we are focused on a budget. There will be savings
in the budget across a range of areas, but they
are being delivered into frontline services like health and education,
(05:52):
so that we can actually deliver the services that Kiwis
really want.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
We talked this morning on the show about statistics announcing
that the average public sector worker earns ten dollars more
an hour than a worker in the private sector. Tim,
I mean this shouldn't be right, should it.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
No, Look, we support for pay, but there needs to
be a responsible approach from the taxpayer. I guess that's
at the point we've been we've been talking about so far,
and we need to keep sort of pay increases sustainable.
And look, as you say, it's clear that public wages
have been going up fast in the private sector and
in the long term thatcomp it's not sustainable. Ah.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Sure, this was a little bit of your issue when
you were in parliament. I lived through it. You were
getting staff from the public sector private sector all the time,
paying them more. Is that right to actually just pinch
them off the private sector and pay them more.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
I just want to go back to those statistics Nick,
the comparison of the average wage across public sector where
we have to employ everyone from scientists to head masters
to medical specialists, with the rest of the private sector,
where there are lower wage parts of the economy, like,
for example, tourism, that's not a fair comparison. So I
(07:14):
think we should put those statistics to one side. But yes,
it is appropriate that the government is a good employer
and pays pays people what they're worth.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
I'm talking about people that we're working in, you know,
things like hospitality that we're getting government department jobs. Now
they were getting paid more and great, that's fantastic. We
all want to see that. But that's not really fair,
is it.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Well, that's what a market economy does.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Okay, So you think it's okay, Well.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
I think if a worker is able to move to
a place for higher wages, that's you know, that's what
happens in New Zealand. It's not communism.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
Yeah, but that can't be labor's policy position that because
we've just been talking about how our government's committed to
pay equity and they actually want to be legislating for this,
So you can't is what wiped this one off and
say it's about market forces. Actually, this is about being
responsible employer and also at the same time being a
responsible government. And if you look at the percentage increase,
(08:17):
you know, I think more than four percent increase for
government employees, around two percent in the private sector, it
does show that that maybe we've been out of step.
It's good to see wages going up. We want to
help every key we with the cost of living, but
we have to do that in a responsible way because
we're spending taxpay dollars and so.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
We are talking like for like.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
I'm very confused by this, Tim. So are you now
saying that the law changed yesterday was to try and
bring down public sector wages because your Minister of Finance
has been vehemently denying that. But if the truth is
that this legislation was trying to reduce the gap between
the public and the private sectors, and I think, you know,
(08:58):
I think that is quite clear that this is an
effort by the National Party to bring down women's wages.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
No, what I see was I'm real surprised to hear
the Labor partying party saying now that they just believe
in market forces, because market forces has what is let
to the pay equity, the kind of pay inequity that
we are wanting to fix in the National Party. Market
forces is what has in your view you've just said,
has led to government pay increases almost been double that
(09:25):
of the private sector. And I'm saying that's also not responsible.
We need to spend taxpayers money really carefully. We need
to be really intentional about what we do. Is we
help care we through cost of living crisis that they
were delivered by the last Labor government.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Shall I also want to ask you because we had
a nurse ring up the show this morning. She's a
qualified registered nurse working in age care. If she was
working at Wellington Hospital she would earn five dollars an
hour more. Is that right? I mean, does that work?
Speaker 3 (09:56):
No? And I point out that both Labor and National
took to the election policies where the pay equity that
was awarded public sector nurses, the nurses and hospitals would
have also been passed on to those in what we
call a funded sector age care, general practice and so on.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
So a nurse is a nurse, a registered nurses are
regis the nurse? Where this is we because a lot
of people say, well, oh call a rang up and said, oh,
well if they're working in hospital are dealing with this
and they're doing in the age k But they're doing
the same thing, aren't they.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
That's right? And let's remember age care general practice they
are funded from the same government pot and taxpayer funding
that hospital nurses are.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
You're right. Politics Thursday with Aisha Viral and Tim Costley
last yesterday afternoon, which is timing of it was kind
of weird. After ahole of fighting and bickering and moaning
and carrying on in Parliament, suddenly poor old David Parker
had to get up and give a validation speech, validationary speech,
valedictory speech. Long serving MP he is. He gave his speech.
(11:00):
I thought it was reasonably boring, to be honest, but
I don't want it because he's a very intelligent, smart man.
But I thought the speech I swatched over and watched
the chaser halfway through actually be honest with you. But
I shouldn't say that. But he thinks that MMP is
not as good as it should be. He thinks that
he said it polarizes us. To be exact, he's in
(11:22):
favor of STV system where we vote based on preferences
like Wellington's local government. I don't like that system either,
Oh sir, what do you make of his comment that
MMP's broken.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Yeah? I want to recognize David Parker's twenty three years
in Parliament, and those who heard the full speech would
know this was wondering for a number of proposals he
wanted to float on his way out of Parliament. And
that's what I love about David as a colleague. He
is very intellectually curious and thoughtful about issues in New Zealand.
The people of New Zealand have affirmed and a referendum
(11:56):
that they want to stick with MMP. I think that
was about three elections after we first brought an MMP,
so I don't see a reason to change that. But
it is a good poor that David's making. That STV
does link you to an electorate, so that would mean
that every MP was from an electorate, and maybe that
would mean people were moderated a little bit in some
(12:17):
of their views.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Would you be able to get in a kind of
like a list under that system, you have to be
still voted.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Inn't No. So it's like the Australian system, And what
it would mean is you'd rank voters, you'd rank the
candidates as a voter, but your electorate would only deliver
the one MP two parliament. So it still has the
problem that parliament might not reflect the overall composition of
what people wanted. You can see in Australia now the
(12:45):
Greens did really well in Australia, but at this stage
it's looking like they're not getting a single seat in
the House of representatives can do you think every.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
MP should actually have to win a seat to get
into Parliament?
Speaker 4 (12:59):
Well, that's just not how it works now, right, And I.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Didn't ask you how it works. I saidul do you
like the idea of everyone having to win a.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
I mean conceptually, that's I mean quite an interesting idea.
I like being an electric MP. I do have that,
you know, group of seventy thousand people that ground me
and that I hear the views of the meet with regularly.
I think it would be you know, you have to
work really intentionally if you don't have that. But at
the same time, you know, just delivered a proportional max. Yeah,
(13:31):
it adds some complexity, but it also adds some broad
representation and you know this brings more views to the table.
That's you know, every system has strengths and weaknesses, right,
this is the class at Winston Churchill. Democracy is the
worst form apart from all the others, and the m
MP is the worst form apart from all the others
as well.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
I'm not sure can I ask you, and this is
something I feel reasonably strongly about. Should you be treated
differently because you've won a seat to a list MP?
Speaker 4 (14:00):
In part I think there are some list MPs that
work incredibly hard. I see that in the National Party
there are some list MPs that don't even have a
parliamentary office, that aren't you know, necessarily available in the
community because most most of them stood in a seat,
not all, but you know, they instead just take the
(14:21):
money and the provisions that should be there for their
MP office and channel into other things. And you know,
there does seem to be a disparity in the way
that list MPs operate across different parties. But I think
in National.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
On those people you're talking about, I'd love to know,
because I'll be watching it a bit on TV. It
looks woman boring.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Well, there you go, that's why you're watching the checks. No, look,
I see someone like Nancy Lowe, National Party list MP.
She works incredibly hard. She has an office in Auckland,
but she's also around the country all the time. She
gets very little time with her family at home, and
I think she does an incredible job as a list MP.
You'll be able to find the ones that don't even
(15:04):
have officers or or availability in the local electric from
Macady all right.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
I want to move on. National MP Catherine web has
introduced a members bill to ban under sixteen year olds
for using social media, but it's not a government bill
and has to be pulled out of the ballot now
it may never I mean I hate that tin. What
do they call it? The tin? I hate it. I mean,
you never know, biscuit tin. That's for a score, You
(15:30):
never know what somebody's going to be pulled out of.
This is just talk until it gets pulled out of
the biscuit tin tin. Why is this not a government bill?
Why are we not following Australia.
Speaker 4 (15:40):
Well, I guess that's the conversation we're having right now,
and we're hearing you know, I'm hearing really positive feedback,
not from both from one of my teenage daughders, but
to be fear from parents. I am, and I think
the option is there for this still to come through
as a government bill or for the you know, the
mechanism for you know, sixty one votes to trigger it through.
There's a number of ways it could come through. I
(16:02):
think we've seen pretty clear indication from the Prime Minister
that there are you know, he's open to considering some
of that. But look, personally, I love it. I know
one of my daughters. Isn't going to love me saying that,
But I think it's great.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Yeah I do too. So why did your government not
do anything about it? And would you actually support it
if they did do something about it?
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Yeah, I want to say as a parent, I get
the anxiety that we have around a harm that our
kids might be exposed to through social social media. We
did have work underway on a harmful content online online
that has been abandoned. This is a new proposal that
picks up on the work that's being done in Australia. Look,
(16:41):
I'm really interested in it, haven't made up my mind,
but I think the also interested in the practicalities of
how it's going to actually work and whether the Australians
will be able to make it work will be a
big influence on that.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
So basically we both probably we all agree that this
is just a story until it gets to the next level,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Yeah, that's right. The government could have chosen to make
it a government bill. They don't have to be subject
to the whims of biscuit tin as US's opposition in
PS do so until then, I think we're looking for
more information and just keeping an eye on this issue.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Education and Immigration Minister Erica Stanford's been under the fire
this week. It was revealed that she occasionally used her
personal email address for work purposes. Aisha. I mean even
you would think, well, I'm not going to put words
in your mouth, But to me, this is a complete
TV one beat up.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
We have rules for a reason, and let's not forget
that if any of the people working for Erica Stanford
in her ministry were dealing with this information in an
incorrect way, there would be consequences for them. The government
spends millions of dollars of making sure that its email
system is secure, that we have the physical facilities to
(17:54):
deal with secure information. Then a minister goes and ignores it.
It's not good enough.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
But realistically, she was putting stuff onto a computer so
she could print it at her office or at her home.
There was nothing untoward about anything that she was doing,
was there, and they were just trying to bring her down.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
I don't agree. It is that the National Party will
be the first to say that rules are rules and
they have to be followed otherwise there are consequences. Seems
like on this occasion, when it concerns one of their
own they're not taking that stand.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Do you really think it was that serious?
Speaker 3 (18:29):
Well, we don't know, because have you seen the emails yet.
I saw a fraction of them today, and there are
tons of them. This was not an isolated incident. And
let's not forget in two thousand and three, under our
government we funded the IT upgrades and implemented them so
that this sort of having to send things to your
home printer wasn't needed.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Tim please defend me here.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
Look, I would acknowledge that it's not best practice, and
I think, you know, Eric Stanford herself has said that.
But let's remember Chris Hipkins did the exact same thing
in twenty eighteen and defended it and said it was okay,
and they was doing it for I think to quotium.
It was primarily things like printing documents at home. So
you know, the rest profile just has not changed over
(19:16):
the last seven years. So is that ideal? Probably not.
It was an ideal when Chris hip considered it, even
if he thought it was fine at the time. Now
suddenly he thinks this is the worst thing. You know.
I just sometimes think, you know, maybe parties just run
out of ideas and are looking for it for a
beat up, to get on board. And this, to me,
this isn't it.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
This wasn't a party thing. This was Television New Zealand.
And I mean, if there wasn't a big news story
the second night, they would have led with it the
second night. They made it second story or third story
on the second night because something else happened. I think
it was gosh, what was it? Pay equity I think
hit the headline, so it was put back to the
second story. But TV one wanted to win an award
on this one, didn't they.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Yeah, well, well maybe, and I don't know, you know, look,
maybe they'd run out of ideas over the easter break
for a good story. But now you've also got Iceher
and Chris yesterday I think said it was like hanging
out a big welcome sign to you know, some dubious
actors in the world. You know. I just think we've
(20:16):
we've got this a bit out of proportion. She printed
some documents at home, documents that had already been released
publicly that there's no state secrets being shared here. I
just think we need to maybe turne this one down
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I'm a fair to Stuart there and he got hung
out to drive for sending a couple of emails really
to some people. But I didn't think he should have
lost his job either. I know it's a bit different,
but I'm just saying, you know, yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Well, look, if Tim wants to agree that he's never
on this show going to ever again say the words
the rules are the rules, then maybe maybe we could
agree on this one. But I think it's highly unlikely
that National Party who insists everyone else has to follow
the rules when it comes to law and order, but
when one of their own doesn't follow the Cabinet Manual,
(21:04):
they're willing to give them a free pass.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
So do you think she should stand out? Do you
think that the Prime Minister should take away portfolios it
to take them all off it.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
I think the Prime minister's description that he is relaxed
about this is inappropriate.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Okay, I'm pretty relaxed about it too. I was sorry
to tell you, but I'm pretty relaxed able politics Thursday.
I've got to get I'm told off when I get
off here from aisher there, I can see that Ai
Shaviril and Tim Costly thank you both very much for
your time this morning. Get back into that boring place.
Why don't they start telling people to take those cowboy
hats off? In Parliament. I get affronted when I see
(21:40):
people wearing cowboy hat and there seems to be more
and more people wearing them every time I've turned TV on.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
Look, one of my roles for public life is I'm
not giving anyone else fashion advice.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Well, you don't wear cowboy hats. Tim Costley, Ei Shaviral,
thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills. Listen live
to news talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
You're listening to the Wellington Mornings podcast with Nick Mills
from News Talk said b focusing in on the issues
that matter politics Thursday on Wellington Mornings, news Talk said bhine,
can you make your decision.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Joining us politics Thursday? This week is labor, health and
Wellington's issues. Spokeswoman A SHAVERA, good morning, Ice morning. Will
Hew you going? I shure you're right, Yeah, I'm really well.
Tough day yesterday in the House.
Speaker 3 (00:45):
Wasn't it wasn't pretty pretty sad to see see all
that repeal of our pay equity legislation and the impact
that we'll have on women.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Okay, A National's o Tachi MP term costly. Good morning, Tim.
Speaker 4 (00:58):
Here, good morning, that can coome oning.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
I shout right, let's start. Let's start the show this
with this week. What happened yesterday Workplace Relations Minister Brooke
van Valden an out sea was completely revamping pay equity
laws and it all happened under urgency, with almost no notice,
all in twenty four hours. Tim National supported this law
(01:23):
when it was passing twenty twenty. What the hell's changed?
Speaker 4 (01:27):
Well, we still support pay equity and fundamentally rarely support
equal pay. So equal pay hasn't changed through this, just
to be really clear upfront, and we still support pay equity.
We believe that the system in place needs to be robust,
it needs to be sustainable, and we need to make
sure that we're targeting it towards where there is a
genuine sex space difference, in other words, where men and
(01:50):
women in comparable trades are being paid differently, and not
confuse it or blur it with a number of other
factors like the consumer Price index and things like that.
Speaker 2 (02:01):
Should you really actually think there's a problem here that
needed to be fixed, you know, certain jobs being compared
what they would compared a healthcare worker to a mechanic
or something. I mean, what's going on here.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
National is cutting women's pay. That's what the changes that
came through yesterday do. And we know that's the case
because David Seymour said this will help rebalance the budget.
It's pretty tough for New Zealand's women having to pay
the price for an unbalanced budget from the government. Look,
there are a lot of technical comparisons and the pay
equity legislation, but as it was, it brought through very
(02:37):
meaningful uplifts in people's wages I saw us losing nurses
overseas when I was Minister of Health. The pay equity
settlement meant we were able to retain al nurses at
unprecedented levels because of that. So they make meaning for
uplifts in women's salaries.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
And it did cost us billions of dollars. Could we
afford it?
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Well?
Speaker 3 (02:58):
Could we afford to have no nurses? That's what was
happening before your recall. After COVID we were rarely struggling
though that pay equity settlement brought the wage up to
what those women were entitled to pay. Equity is about
fear evaluation of women's work.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
Tim This is all about the money, isn't it. We
heard David Seymour say so. I mean he said he's
just saved billions of dollars.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Oh look, and the Prime Minister's and knowledge there will
be some savings through that, But that's not what it's about.
This is about a robust framework actually makes a good point,
and that retaining personnel nurses but also things like police
officers and a number of other teachers. Of course, increasing
salaries is really helpful for that. That's why we're so
focused on growth. That's why we're so focused on the
(03:43):
cost of living. That's why we delivered the text release
last year that Labor voted against. That was actually all
good things for our nurses and our teachers. But what's
not helpful, I think, and what this legislation change has improved,
is where there were really confusing comparators. Where you're where
you're comparing an administrative clerk to a fisheries officer, when
(04:04):
you're comparing libraryans to transport engineers. That's not necessarily the
best way to do this. So what we want to
do is make sure we're not looking at really broad,
confusing other factors in the market. We're looking at where
is there genuine sex based discrimination and where ever, though
those cases are present, they can still go through. There
(04:26):
is still a pathway to go through. It is very
clear what that pathway is now, and the vast majority
of existing claims don't change.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
A couple of questions here, tim Firstly, why did no
one know it was about to happen? And why was
it passed under urgency? I mean, was that really necessary?
Speaker 4 (04:45):
So I think in these situations sometimes one of the
most important things that I hear from people is the
need for clarity and if we had a two track
system where there was some claims going through under an
old system, some under a new one, you would introduce inequality.
So there was a need to just be very be fair,
be very clear about what the rules were, and to
make a clean cut for from the old confusing system
(05:08):
to one that focused on delivering pay equity where there
is sex based discrimination.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
I said, this is down to one thing, to clean money.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
That's right. David Seymour said that this has saved Nikola
Willis's budget. The government is prioritizing their tax cuts and
other promises over the wages of women.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Tim.
Speaker 4 (05:30):
Yeah, and can I just say that, I mean, this
isn't saving the budget. The Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis,
has been very clear that that is not the reason
for this and that the budget adds up, and you know,
we are focused on a budget. There will be savings
in the budget across a range of areas, but they
are being delivered into frontline services like health and education,
(05:52):
so that we can actually deliver the services that Kiwis
really want.
Speaker 2 (05:56):
We talked this morning on the show about statistics announcing
that the average public sector worker earns ten dollars more
an hour than a worker in the private sector. Tim,
I mean this shouldn't be right, should it.
Speaker 4 (06:12):
No, Look, we support for pay, but there needs to
be a responsible approach from the taxpayer. I guess that's
at the point we've been we've been talking about so far,
and we need to keep sort of pay increases sustainable.
And look, as you say, it's clear that public wages
have been going up fast in the private sector and
in the long term thatcomp it's not sustainable. Ah.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Sure, this was a little bit of your issue when
you were in parliament. I lived through it. You were
getting staff from the public sector private sector all the time,
paying them more. Is that right to actually just pinch
them off the private sector and pay them more.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
I just want to go back to those statistics Nick,
the comparison of the average wage across public sector where
we have to employ everyone from scientists to head masters
to medical specialists, with the rest of the private sector,
where there are lower wage parts of the economy, like,
for example, tourism, that's not a fair comparison. So I
(07:14):
think we should put those statistics to one side. But yes,
it is appropriate that the government is a good employer
and pays pays people what they're worth.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
I'm talking about people that we're working in, you know,
things like hospitality that we're getting government department jobs. Now
they were getting paid more and great, that's fantastic. We
all want to see that. But that's not really fair,
is it.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Well, that's what a market economy does.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Okay, So you think it's okay, Well.
Speaker 3 (07:46):
I think if a worker is able to move to
a place for higher wages, that's you know, that's what
happens in New Zealand. It's not communism.
Speaker 4 (07:54):
Yeah, but that can't be labor's policy position that because
we've just been talking about how our government's committed to
pay equity and they actually want to be legislating for this,
So you can't is what wiped this one off and
say it's about market forces. Actually, this is about being
responsible employer and also at the same time being a
responsible government. And if you look at the percentage increase,
(08:17):
you know, I think more than four percent increase for
government employees, around two percent in the private sector, it
does show that that maybe we've been out of step.
It's good to see wages going up. We want to
help every key we with the cost of living, but
we have to do that in a responsible way because
we're spending taxpay dollars and so.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
We are talking like for like.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
I'm very confused by this, Tim. So are you now
saying that the law changed yesterday was to try and
bring down public sector wages because your Minister of Finance
has been vehemently denying that. But if the truth is
that this legislation was trying to reduce the gap between
the public and the private sectors, and I think, you know,
(08:58):
I think that is quite clear that this is an
effort by the National Party to bring down women's wages.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
No, what I see was I'm real surprised to hear
the Labor partying party saying now that they just believe
in market forces, because market forces has what is let
to the pay equity, the kind of pay inequity that
we are wanting to fix in the National Party. Market
forces is what has in your view you've just said,
has led to government pay increases almost been double that
(09:25):
of the private sector. And I'm saying that's also not responsible.
We need to spend taxpayers money really carefully. We need
to be really intentional about what we do. Is we
help care we through cost of living crisis that they
were delivered by the last Labor government.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Shall I also want to ask you because we had
a nurse ring up the show this morning. She's a
qualified registered nurse working in age care. If she was
working at Wellington Hospital she would earn five dollars an
hour more. Is that right? I mean, does that work?
Speaker 3 (09:56):
No? And I point out that both Labor and National
took to the election policies where the pay equity that
was awarded public sector nurses, the nurses and hospitals would
have also been passed on to those in what we
call a funded sector age care, general practice and so on.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
So a nurse is a nurse, a registered nurses are
regis the nurse? Where this is we because a lot
of people say, well, oh call a rang up and said, oh,
well if they're working in hospital are dealing with this
and they're doing in the age k But they're doing
the same thing, aren't they.
Speaker 3 (10:25):
That's right? And let's remember age care general practice they
are funded from the same government pot and taxpayer funding
that hospital nurses are.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
You're right. Politics Thursday with Aisha Viral and Tim Costley
last yesterday afternoon, which is timing of it was kind
of weird. After ahole of fighting and bickering and moaning
and carrying on in Parliament, suddenly poor old David Parker
had to get up and give a validation speech, validationary speech,
valedictory speech. Long serving MP he is. He gave his speech.
(11:00):
I thought it was reasonably boring, to be honest, but
I don't want it because he's a very intelligent, smart man.
But I thought the speech I swatched over and watched
the chaser halfway through actually be honest with you. But
I shouldn't say that. But he thinks that MMP is
not as good as it should be. He thinks that
he said it polarizes us. To be exact, he's in
(11:22):
favor of STV system where we vote based on preferences
like Wellington's local government. I don't like that system either,
Oh sir, what do you make of his comment that
MMP's broken.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
Yeah? I want to recognize David Parker's twenty three years
in Parliament, and those who heard the full speech would
know this was wondering for a number of proposals he
wanted to float on his way out of Parliament. And
that's what I love about David as a colleague. He
is very intellectually curious and thoughtful about issues in New Zealand.
The people of New Zealand have affirmed and a referendum
(11:56):
that they want to stick with MMP. I think that
was about three elections after we first brought an MMP,
so I don't see a reason to change that. But
it is a good poor that David's making. That STV
does link you to an electorate, so that would mean
that every MP was from an electorate, and maybe that
would mean people were moderated a little bit in some
(12:17):
of their views.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Would you be able to get in a kind of
like a list under that system, you have to be
still voted.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Inn't No. So it's like the Australian system, And what
it would mean is you'd rank voters, you'd rank the
candidates as a voter, but your electorate would only deliver
the one MP two parliament. So it still has the
problem that parliament might not reflect the overall composition of
what people wanted. You can see in Australia now the
(12:45):
Greens did really well in Australia, but at this stage
it's looking like they're not getting a single seat in
the House of representatives can do you think every.
Speaker 2 (12:55):
MP should actually have to win a seat to get
into Parliament?
Speaker 4 (12:59):
Well, that's just not how it works now, right, And I.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
Didn't ask you how it works. I saidul do you
like the idea of everyone having to win a.
Speaker 4 (13:07):
I mean conceptually, that's I mean quite an interesting idea.
I like being an electric MP. I do have that,
you know, group of seventy thousand people that ground me
and that I hear the views of the meet with regularly.
I think it would be you know, you have to
work really intentionally if you don't have that. But at
the same time, you know, just delivered a proportional max. Yeah,
(13:31):
it adds some complexity, but it also adds some broad
representation and you know this brings more views to the table.
That's you know, every system has strengths and weaknesses, right,
this is the class at Winston Churchill. Democracy is the
worst form apart from all the others, and the m
MP is the worst form apart from all the others
as well.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
I'm not sure can I ask you, and this is
something I feel reasonably strongly about. Should you be treated
differently because you've won a seat to a list MP?
Speaker 4 (14:00):
In part I think there are some list MPs that
work incredibly hard. I see that in the National Party
there are some list MPs that don't even have a
parliamentary office, that aren't you know, necessarily available in the
community because most most of them stood in a seat,
not all, but you know, they instead just take the
(14:21):
money and the provisions that should be there for their
MP office and channel into other things. And you know,
there does seem to be a disparity in the way
that list MPs operate across different parties. But I think
in National.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
On those people you're talking about, I'd love to know,
because I'll be watching it a bit on TV. It
looks woman boring.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Well, there you go, that's why you're watching the checks. No, look,
I see someone like Nancy Lowe, National Party list MP.
She works incredibly hard. She has an office in Auckland,
but she's also around the country all the time. She
gets very little time with her family at home, and
I think she does an incredible job as a list MP.
You'll be able to find the ones that don't even
(15:04):
have officers or or availability in the local electric from
Macady all right.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
I want to move on. National MP Catherine web has
introduced a members bill to ban under sixteen year olds
for using social media, but it's not a government bill
and has to be pulled out of the ballot now
it may never I mean I hate that tin. What
do they call it? The tin? I hate it. I mean,
you never know, biscuit tin. That's for a score, You
(15:30):
never know what somebody's going to be pulled out of.
This is just talk until it gets pulled out of
the biscuit tin tin. Why is this not a government bill?
Why are we not following Australia.
Speaker 4 (15:40):
Well, I guess that's the conversation we're having right now,
and we're hearing you know, I'm hearing really positive feedback,
not from both from one of my teenage daughders, but
to be fear from parents. I am, and I think
the option is there for this still to come through
as a government bill or for the you know, the
mechanism for you know, sixty one votes to trigger it through.
There's a number of ways it could come through. I
(16:02):
think we've seen pretty clear indication from the Prime Minister
that there are you know, he's open to considering some
of that. But look, personally, I love it. I know
one of my daughters. Isn't going to love me saying that,
But I think it's great.
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Yeah I do too. So why did your government not
do anything about it? And would you actually support it
if they did do something about it?
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Yeah, I want to say as a parent, I get
the anxiety that we have around a harm that our
kids might be exposed to through social social media. We
did have work underway on a harmful content online online
that has been abandoned. This is a new proposal that
picks up on the work that's being done in Australia. Look,
(16:41):
I'm really interested in it, haven't made up my mind,
but I think the also interested in the practicalities of
how it's going to actually work and whether the Australians
will be able to make it work will be a
big influence on that.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
So basically we both probably we all agree that this
is just a story until it gets to the next level,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (17:00):
Yeah, that's right. The government could have chosen to make
it a government bill. They don't have to be subject
to the whims of biscuit tin as US's opposition in
PS do so until then, I think we're looking for
more information and just keeping an eye on this issue.
Speaker 2 (17:14):
Education and Immigration Minister Erica Stanford's been under the fire
this week. It was revealed that she occasionally used her
personal email address for work purposes. Aisha. I mean even
you would think, well, I'm not going to put words
in your mouth, But to me, this is a complete
TV one beat up.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
We have rules for a reason, and let's not forget
that if any of the people working for Erica Stanford
in her ministry were dealing with this information in an
incorrect way, there would be consequences for them. The government
spends millions of dollars of making sure that its email
system is secure, that we have the physical facilities to
(17:54):
deal with secure information. Then a minister goes and ignores it.
It's not good enough.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
But realistically, she was putting stuff onto a computer so
she could print it at her office or at her home.
There was nothing untoward about anything that she was doing,
was there, and they were just trying to bring her down.
Speaker 3 (18:12):
I don't agree. It is that the National Party will
be the first to say that rules are rules and
they have to be followed otherwise there are consequences. Seems
like on this occasion, when it concerns one of their
own they're not taking that stand.
Speaker 2 (18:27):
Do you really think it was that serious?
Speaker 3 (18:29):
Well, we don't know, because have you seen the emails yet.
I saw a fraction of them today, and there are
tons of them. This was not an isolated incident. And
let's not forget in two thousand and three, under our
government we funded the IT upgrades and implemented them so
that this sort of having to send things to your
home printer wasn't needed.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Tim please defend me here.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:55):
Look, I would acknowledge that it's not best practice, and
I think, you know, Eric Stanford herself has said that.
But let's remember Chris Hipkins did the exact same thing
in twenty eighteen and defended it and said it was okay,
and they was doing it for I think to quotium.
It was primarily things like printing documents at home. So
you know, the rest profile just has not changed over
(19:16):
the last seven years. So is that ideal? Probably not.
It was an ideal when Chris hip considered it, even
if he thought it was fine at the time. Now
suddenly he thinks this is the worst thing. You know.
I just sometimes think, you know, maybe parties just run
out of ideas and are looking for it for a
beat up, to get on board. And this, to me,
this isn't it.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
This wasn't a party thing. This was Television New Zealand.
And I mean, if there wasn't a big news story
the second night, they would have led with it the
second night. They made it second story or third story
on the second night because something else happened. I think
it was gosh, what was it? Pay equity I think
hit the headline, so it was put back to the
second story. But TV one wanted to win an award
on this one, didn't they.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Yeah, well, well maybe, and I don't know, you know, look,
maybe they'd run out of ideas over the easter break
for a good story. But now you've also got Iceher
and Chris yesterday I think said it was like hanging
out a big welcome sign to you know, some dubious
actors in the world. You know. I just think we've
(20:16):
we've got this a bit out of proportion. She printed
some documents at home, documents that had already been released
publicly that there's no state secrets being shared here. I
just think we need to maybe turne this one down
a little bit.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
I'm a fair to Stuart there and he got hung
out to drive for sending a couple of emails really
to some people. But I didn't think he should have
lost his job either. I know it's a bit different,
but I'm just saying, you know, yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:42):
Well, look, if Tim wants to agree that he's never
on this show going to ever again say the words
the rules are the rules, then maybe maybe we could
agree on this one. But I think it's highly unlikely
that National Party who insists everyone else has to follow
the rules when it comes to law and order, but
when one of their own doesn't follow the Cabinet Manual,
(21:04):
they're willing to give them a free pass.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
So do you think she should stand out? Do you
think that the Prime Minister should take away portfolios it
to take them all off it.
Speaker 3 (21:13):
I think the Prime minister's description that he is relaxed
about this is inappropriate.
Speaker 2 (21:18):
Okay, I'm pretty relaxed about it too. I was sorry
to tell you, but I'm pretty relaxed able politics Thursday.
I've got to get I'm told off when I get
off here from aisher there, I can see that Ai
Shaviril and Tim Costly thank you both very much for
your time this morning. Get back into that boring place.
Why don't they start telling people to take those cowboy
hats off? In Parliament. I get affronted when I see
(21:40):
people wearing cowboy hat and there seems to be more
and more people wearing them every time I've turned TV on.
Speaker 3 (21:45):
Look, one of my roles for public life is I'm
not giving anyone else fashion advice.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Well, you don't wear cowboy hats. Tim Costley, Ei Shaviral,
thank you very much.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
For more from Wellington Mornings with Nick Mills. Listen live
to news talks It'd Be Wellington from nine am weekdays,
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.