May 12, 2025 • 9 mins
The Finance Minister's keeping a cool head, despite being the subject of some colourful language in yesterday's papers.
The Post's Andrea Vance wrote a column on Sunday levelling the c-word at Nicola Willis - as well as Judith Collins, Louise Upston, Nicola Grigg, Brooke van Velden and Erica Stanford in response to the Government's pay equity changes.
Nicola Willis says she's used to criticism and insults as part of politics, but she's voiced concerns about the implications for other women.
"I always think about other young women who want to go into politics, and I don't want them to think that it's okay to have their gender weaponised against them - and I don't want any young women to think there's a difference between girl maths and boy maths. It's called maths."
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 (00:00):
Nichola Willis Finance Ministers with US. Now, Hi, Nikola, Hi,
So did you read the Sunday Star Times first or
did somebody tell you what was in there?
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I read it first. I read all my news alerts
diligently on a Sunday morning. That one was surprising. I
hadn't expected that.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
No, And how do you feel about it?
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Well, you know, water off a duck's back. Really the
unfortunate reality of political life as people call your names
and say mean things. But I always think about other
young women who I want to go into politics, and
I don't want them to think that it's okay to
have their agenda weaponized against them. And I don't want
any young woman to think there's a difference between girl
(00:41):
maths and boy maths. It's called maths.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Yeah, that's the thing that's surprised, I think. I mean,
apart from the gendered put down, which was pretty remarkable
to read in print. But apart from that, that was
the thing that really surprised me is that we had
a woman saying that another woman cannot do maths because
she is a woman. That's bizarre, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Yeah, it is been bizarre, and it's not what you'd
expect to see in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Tell me, tell me what you know from this, Nichola.
Do you want this column taken back? Do you want
an apology? What do you want?
Speaker 2 (01:09):
I don't want it to be about me. I want
it to be about getting the truth out there, because
the thing that has irritated me and my female colleagues,
who are also insulted terribly in that column is a
lot of half truth, smith leading information, lack of facts,
and the facts on what we've done on pay equity
are quite different from many of the claims being made publicly,
and I want that information out there. So I hope
(01:32):
that a few people click on my response to the
Weekend Star Tribe and read those facts. That's what's important.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Don't worrying nobody read any of the misfacts because nobody
got past that word.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
That was fairly Shockum.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Yeah we got there and went, oh okay, that's the
end of that column.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Hey, you know that is a nice side of it.
Though heither, there's been some real solidarity. I've had messages
from women I haven't seen in years, just saying, you know,
I might not even be a NAT, but you should
not have to tolerate that someone sent me flowers. I've
had a real outpouring of suprecy.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Sure is I.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Actually a former MP. I'll keep her name private because
you know I haven't been disclosed to bring her into
the public domain, but a former MP. And she just said,
there are no words, so I'm sending you flowers instead.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
That's a very nice thing to do. Now, listen, how
much did you save by revamping the pay equity scheme?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Looks significant money billions, and it is the case that
without that money we would have far fewer positive initiatives
in our budget that we think are necessary and a
priority for New Zealand right now. But the most important
thing for me always as we've been looking at this
issue for some months, has been we've got to get
it right in principle, because I believe in the idea
(02:47):
of pay equity. I know not everyone does, but I do.
That is the idea that some women have been systemically
undervalued and underpaid because they are women, and I think
there should be correction for that in law. So I
wanted to be sure that any regime we put up
to replace the existing regime would uphold that principle before
we then move to make changes. Having satisfied ourselves of that,
(03:09):
I was happy to go through with it. And it
is the case that if we hadn't done it, labor
scheme was in such a mess that it was exploding
in costs. It was going to cost billions more in
the future. It was going to lead to borrowing extra
taxes or massive spending cuts. And so the decision we've
come to is the right one. It's the financially sound one,
and it's the principled one.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Have you saved seventeen billion?
Speaker 2 (03:31):
I'm not going to give you the number today, Heather,
that's what it would well be now. She's what she's
done is looked at how much money was in contingency
and the budget. That contingency number covers more than pay equity.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Okay, so is it more than ten billion.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
It's a really big number. I'm going to reveal it
on budget day. The only but that's a bit subtle
about it, is we have retained funding for future pay
equities settlements, so we've kept money in contingency.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
That number I can't disclose because obviously it's a sensitive
figure for commercial negotiations for employment bargaining. That will occur.
So there's some complexity in what I can reveal about
how big the costs had got, how much we'd saved,
and how much we've kept in reserve. But I'm going
to be as candid as I can within those bounds.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
On budget, I'll tell you what I did. What I
don't understand is why you're being honest with us today
and saying, yep, we've saved a whole bunch of money
for the budget. But then Chris lux In last week
was like, no, it's not about the budget. It clearly is.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Well, look, right on day one I said, look, this
is going to deliver bit billiance. I was absolutely today.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
And as to going out and saying it's not about
the budget, well, I.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Think he was probably reflecting the point I made to
you earlier, which is that actually, this is still a
principal change. It's not as if we were prepared to
do absolutely anything to fund the budget, which was how
some were characterizing it. We first needed to satisfy ourselves
that we could do this in a way that was
fair and just, and then having determined that, then the
savings flow.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
I don't believe that. Do you know why I don't
believe that because if you, guys, if this wasn't about
the budget, you wouldn't have done it last week in
the space of a couple of days.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Like, well, yeah, we'll just be clear about that. We
were thinking about it ages ago. I first brought a
paper on pay equity to cabinet in April last year.
We first started discussing legislative change in December, having made
cabinet decisions in March. We didn't need to get the
legislation passed in order for those savings to be realized.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Why didn't Bunch talk about this publicly so you could
bring people with.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
You, Because our concern was that we would create a
limbo land for many months in which people would not
know whether their current claims were going to be progressed,
the basis on which they were going to be assessed,
and we'd create a situation in which you'd have a
group of people thinking, should I be rushing in my
claim or should I be changing the nature of my claim.
(05:52):
This way, we've provided certainty, clarity. The new regime is
now a place that's very us clean inside how they
want to submit their.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
But it's magnanimous of you, but you've ended up shocking
people to such an extent that it's backfired on you, guys,
I would say, don't you think.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Well, I think the truth will out. I trust New
Zealanders to see through the heat and the noise and
to get their heads around this. To reject the ridiculous
claims by labor and others that we've somehow got rid
of equal pay, which remains as protected in law as
it always has been. To reject the idea that we're
actually cutting women's pay. No, all those nurses, all those
(06:26):
social workers who got pay equity settlements, they're still going
to be paid. And to reject the idea that we're
somehow getting rid of the pay equity. Actually, there will
be future settlements, so that information, once people have it
in their heads, I trust that they'll see this as
a sensible decision.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
I was reading about Adrian Orr's last meeting with you
and US and Christian Hawksby was at the Select Committee
and say, I can't remember what it was about. He
doesn't remember, do you?
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Yeah? I do. There were three topics we discussed. We
discussed capital adequacy ratios, We discussed the Reserve Banks funding agreement,
and we discussed the Reserve Bank's progress on the banking
competition issues, which I had written expectations to them about
earlier in.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
The year now, So I think this is quite suspicious, Nikola,
that it feels to me like this bust up has
been potentially about the capital adequacy ratios, right, because you
asked for multiple meetings with him about the capital requirements
and he said I can't do it, he can't do it.
Februy seven, can't do it, February ten, can't do it, whatever, whatever,
And then while you are getting that locked into the diary,
(07:28):
you ask Treasury whether it's possible for you to actually
override him and force him to do what you want.
So was that what it was really about?
Speaker 2 (07:35):
No, As I said, there were three topics up for discussion,
the Reserve Banks funding agreement and its progress on banking.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
No, I mean, why is that why he quit?
Speaker 2 (07:46):
I know, I don't think that that is why he quit.
As I've said, his reasons for resigning are his own
there for him to express, not for me. But actually,
the relationship I have with the Reserve Bank is also
with its board, who actually were very involved in the
decision to do their own review of capital adequacy reflecting
the views of the board members that that was an
(08:08):
appropriate thing to do, reflecting what has been widespread public
discussion and critique of their position and their desire to
check it and to defend it.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
So he didn't quit because you try to force him
to change the capital requirements.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
I don't think that's the case.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
He don't think that's the case.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
As I say, his reasons for his resignation are his own.
He worked through his employment relationship with the Reserve Bank Board,
not me. I'm not his employer. I was advised of
his resignation. I was told that there was personal reasons
for it. Yeah, and actually that's where it's ats.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Okay, But so if you don't think that's the case,
it means it is also possible that it is the case.
Like it's possible, you know.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
If you want the answers to these questions, the person
to speak with is Adrian or himself. I can't tell
you what went through his mind and what fact did
in his decision. I suspect, like most people who decide
to end a job, there was all sorts of things
going on for the houses.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yeah, not for the not For the first time, you've
suggested that we interview somebody else and it's not a
bad idea. Actually, we will put a thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
I've got a future as a radio producer.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Well, when Andrea is done with you, you might need it.
That's Nichola Willis's finance minister, obviously. For more from Heather
Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news Talks. It'd be
from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Nichola Willis Finance Ministers with US. Now, Hi, Nikola, Hi,
So did you read the Sunday Star Times first or
did somebody tell you what was in there?
Speaker 2 (00:09):
I read it first. I read all my news alerts
diligently on a Sunday morning. That one was surprising. I
hadn't expected that.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
No, And how do you feel about it?
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Well, you know, water off a duck's back. Really the
unfortunate reality of political life as people call your names
and say mean things. But I always think about other
young women who I want to go into politics, and
I don't want them to think that it's okay to
have their agenda weaponized against them. And I don't want
any young woman to think there's a difference between girl
(00:41):
maths and boy maths. It's called maths.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Yeah, that's the thing that's surprised, I think. I mean,
apart from the gendered put down, which was pretty remarkable
to read in print. But apart from that, that was
the thing that really surprised me is that we had
a woman saying that another woman cannot do maths because
she is a woman. That's bizarre, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (00:59):
Yeah, it is been bizarre, and it's not what you'd
expect to see in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1 (01:03):
Tell me, tell me what you know from this, Nichola.
Do you want this column taken back? Do you want
an apology? What do you want?
Speaker 2 (01:09):
I don't want it to be about me. I want
it to be about getting the truth out there, because
the thing that has irritated me and my female colleagues,
who are also insulted terribly in that column is a
lot of half truth, smith leading information, lack of facts,
and the facts on what we've done on pay equity
are quite different from many of the claims being made publicly,
and I want that information out there. So I hope
(01:32):
that a few people click on my response to the
Weekend Star Tribe and read those facts. That's what's important.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Don't worrying nobody read any of the misfacts because nobody
got past that word.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
That was fairly Shockum.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Yeah we got there and went, oh okay, that's the
end of that column.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
Hey, you know that is a nice side of it.
Though heither, there's been some real solidarity. I've had messages
from women I haven't seen in years, just saying, you know,
I might not even be a NAT, but you should
not have to tolerate that someone sent me flowers. I've
had a real outpouring of suprecy.
Speaker 1 (02:04):
Sure is I.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
Actually a former MP. I'll keep her name private because
you know I haven't been disclosed to bring her into
the public domain, but a former MP. And she just said,
there are no words, so I'm sending you flowers instead.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
That's a very nice thing to do. Now, listen, how
much did you save by revamping the pay equity scheme?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Looks significant money billions, and it is the case that
without that money we would have far fewer positive initiatives
in our budget that we think are necessary and a
priority for New Zealand right now. But the most important
thing for me always as we've been looking at this
issue for some months, has been we've got to get
it right in principle, because I believe in the idea
(02:47):
of pay equity. I know not everyone does, but I do.
That is the idea that some women have been systemically
undervalued and underpaid because they are women, and I think
there should be correction for that in law. So I
wanted to be sure that any regime we put up
to replace the existing regime would uphold that principle before
we then move to make changes. Having satisfied ourselves of that,
(03:09):
I was happy to go through with it. And it
is the case that if we hadn't done it, labor
scheme was in such a mess that it was exploding
in costs. It was going to cost billions more in
the future. It was going to lead to borrowing extra
taxes or massive spending cuts. And so the decision we've
come to is the right one. It's the financially sound one,
and it's the principled one.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Have you saved seventeen billion?
Speaker 2 (03:31):
I'm not going to give you the number today, Heather,
that's what it would well be now. She's what she's
done is looked at how much money was in contingency
and the budget. That contingency number covers more than pay equity.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
Okay, so is it more than ten billion.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
It's a really big number. I'm going to reveal it
on budget day. The only but that's a bit subtle
about it, is we have retained funding for future pay
equities settlements, so we've kept money in contingency.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Yep.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
That number I can't disclose because obviously it's a sensitive
figure for commercial negotiations for employment bargaining. That will occur.
So there's some complexity in what I can reveal about
how big the costs had got, how much we'd saved,
and how much we've kept in reserve. But I'm going
to be as candid as I can within those bounds.
Speaker 1 (04:19):
On budget, I'll tell you what I did. What I
don't understand is why you're being honest with us today
and saying, yep, we've saved a whole bunch of money
for the budget. But then Chris lux In last week
was like, no, it's not about the budget. It clearly is.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Well, look, right on day one I said, look, this
is going to deliver bit billiance. I was absolutely today.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
And as to going out and saying it's not about
the budget, well, I.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
Think he was probably reflecting the point I made to
you earlier, which is that actually, this is still a
principal change. It's not as if we were prepared to
do absolutely anything to fund the budget, which was how
some were characterizing it. We first needed to satisfy ourselves
that we could do this in a way that was
fair and just, and then having determined that, then the
savings flow.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
I don't believe that. Do you know why I don't
believe that because if you, guys, if this wasn't about
the budget, you wouldn't have done it last week in
the space of a couple of days.
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Like, well, yeah, we'll just be clear about that. We
were thinking about it ages ago. I first brought a
paper on pay equity to cabinet in April last year.
We first started discussing legislative change in December, having made
cabinet decisions in March. We didn't need to get the
legislation passed in order for those savings to be realized.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Why didn't Bunch talk about this publicly so you could
bring people with.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
You, Because our concern was that we would create a
limbo land for many months in which people would not
know whether their current claims were going to be progressed,
the basis on which they were going to be assessed,
and we'd create a situation in which you'd have a
group of people thinking, should I be rushing in my
claim or should I be changing the nature of my claim.
(05:52):
This way, we've provided certainty, clarity. The new regime is
now a place that's very us clean inside how they
want to submit their.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
But it's magnanimous of you, but you've ended up shocking
people to such an extent that it's backfired on you, guys,
I would say, don't you think.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
Well, I think the truth will out. I trust New
Zealanders to see through the heat and the noise and
to get their heads around this. To reject the ridiculous
claims by labor and others that we've somehow got rid
of equal pay, which remains as protected in law as
it always has been. To reject the idea that we're
actually cutting women's pay. No, all those nurses, all those
(06:26):
social workers who got pay equity settlements, they're still going
to be paid. And to reject the idea that we're
somehow getting rid of the pay equity. Actually, there will
be future settlements, so that information, once people have it
in their heads, I trust that they'll see this as
a sensible decision.
Speaker 1 (06:40):
I was reading about Adrian Orr's last meeting with you
and US and Christian Hawksby was at the Select Committee
and say, I can't remember what it was about. He
doesn't remember, do you?
Speaker 2 (06:51):
Yeah? I do. There were three topics we discussed. We
discussed capital adequacy ratios, We discussed the Reserve Banks funding agreement,
and we discussed the Reserve Bank's progress on the banking
competition issues, which I had written expectations to them about
earlier in.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
The year now, So I think this is quite suspicious, Nikola,
that it feels to me like this bust up has
been potentially about the capital adequacy ratios, right, because you
asked for multiple meetings with him about the capital requirements
and he said I can't do it, he can't do it.
Februy seven, can't do it, February ten, can't do it, whatever, whatever,
And then while you are getting that locked into the diary,
(07:28):
you ask Treasury whether it's possible for you to actually
override him and force him to do what you want.
So was that what it was really about?
Speaker 2 (07:35):
No, As I said, there were three topics up for discussion,
the Reserve Banks funding agreement and its progress on banking.
Speaker 1 (07:41):
No, I mean, why is that why he quit?
Speaker 2 (07:46):
I know, I don't think that that is why he quit.
As I've said, his reasons for resigning are his own
there for him to express, not for me. But actually,
the relationship I have with the Reserve Bank is also
with its board, who actually were very involved in the
decision to do their own review of capital adequacy reflecting
the views of the board members that that was an
(08:08):
appropriate thing to do, reflecting what has been widespread public
discussion and critique of their position and their desire to
check it and to defend it.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
So he didn't quit because you try to force him
to change the capital requirements.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
I don't think that's the case.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
He don't think that's the case.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
As I say, his reasons for his resignation are his own.
He worked through his employment relationship with the Reserve Bank Board,
not me. I'm not his employer. I was advised of
his resignation. I was told that there was personal reasons
for it. Yeah, and actually that's where it's ats.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Okay, But so if you don't think that's the case,
it means it is also possible that it is the case.
Like it's possible, you know.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
If you want the answers to these questions, the person
to speak with is Adrian or himself. I can't tell
you what went through his mind and what fact did
in his decision. I suspect, like most people who decide
to end a job, there was all sorts of things
going on for the houses.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yeah, not for the not For the first time, you've
suggested that we interview somebody else and it's not a
bad idea. Actually, we will put a thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
I've got a future as a radio producer.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Well, when Andrea is done with you, you might need it.
That's Nichola Willis's finance minister, obviously. For more from Heather
Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news Talks. It'd be
from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.