Woman of the day

19/05/2025

Leave a Comment » | women | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Quotes of the week

19/05/2025

Having the C-word directed at me by a journalist in a mainstream publication wasn’t on my bingo-list for Mother’s Day 2025. Nor was being accused of “girl-math”.

But there you have it, that’s what was thrown at me and my female colleagues in a recent newspaper column as hopelessly devoid of facts as it was heavy on sexist slurs. –  Nicola Willis

So let’s get a few things straight about the Government’s law changes.

First, the right to equal pay remains as it ever was. Equal pay has been protected in New Zealand law since 1973. It’s the simple concept that a woman doing the same job as a man should get the same pay. Nothing has changed there. I’d resign my job before I’d let that happen.

Second, no woman has had her pay cut. Twelve existing pay equity settlements including for nurses, social workers, midwives, teacher aides, school librarians, care and support workers and a range of other female-dominated workforces remain. Those settlements resulted in higher pay for tens of thousands of women, and they continue to be funded by the Government, at a cost of around $1.8 billion a year. Our Government values those workers and none of them should be scared into thinking their pay is at risk. It’s not. – Nicola Willis

Third, additional pay equity settlements for further workforces are expected under the Government’s improved pay equity regime. In fact, the Government is so certain that there will be future pay equity settlements that we have set aside large amounts of funding for them in the Budget. We fully expect other women-dominated workforces to be getting pay-equity driven pay rises in future. –

It’s clear people are choosing to weaponise the concept of pay equity by conflating it with all number of other issues, including those that should be dealt with through standard pay negotiations.

Unlike equal pay which compares men and women doing the same job, pay equity is about recognising and correcting for the fact that some female-dominated workforces have been historically underpaid and undervalued due to sex-based discrimination. Our Government supports that principle.

The tricky bit is how to define in law what jobs are of ‘equal value’ and how we work out which aspects of pay are down to sex-discrimination and what are the result of other market-based factors. – Nicola Willis

In 2020, a full three years later, Labour finally got around to putting its own, very loose, regime into law. Unfortunately, like almost everything Labour got its hands on, the system got way out of whack and became completely unaffordable; admin workers were being compared with civil engineers; social workers were being compared with detectives; and librarians were being compared with fisheries officers. Multiple employers were being joined to claims and some had dozens of very different jobs in scope.

What started as a pay equity regime had become a Trojan Horse for a multi-billion dollar grievance industry driven by public sector unions. It had departed a very long way from issues of sex-discrimination.

What the Government did last week was put in law a much more workable pay equity regime that focuses squarely on the actual issue of sex-based discrimination, setting out a transparent process through which employers and employees can negotiate the question of equal value.

Yes, these changes mean the Government has been able to unwind a blow-out in costs that Treasury had been forecasting. The simple fact is that Labour’s broken regime had a hidden, exploding and ultimately unaffordable price tag. Sticking with it would have meant large new taxes, reckless amounts of borrowing or significant spending cuts elsewhere. – Nicola Willis

I’m a feminist, I wear the badge proudly and I’ve upheld those values throughout our Cabinet’s consideration of pay equity issues. I’m up for a debate on how to define sex-based discrimination, but I’m not up for misleading rhetoric and seeing women MPs having their gender weaponised against them and their views dismissed. All our daughters deserve better. – Nicola Willis

“How can we complain about misogynistic behaviour and abusive language by men when women use the same sexual slurs and demeaning language against each other,” Shipley wrote on LinkedIn, in a response to a post by Willis. “Surely, we can disagree vigorously and debate the substance of an issue without going low.– Jenny Shipley

Clearly, there is room for debate on these matters but using threatening sexual language against women and girls is never justified, regardless of the circumstances or who you are! We are better than this as a nation. – Jenny Shipley

I think what it does also do is call into question where the bar is shifting between what you might expect in an online comment, which is pretty loose, and what you would expect in the mainstream media, and I would expect them to uphold higher standards.– Trish Sherson

We’re told that language matters. That sexist slurs degrade all women, not just their target. And that the use of certain words — the worst words — is never acceptable.

Until, apparently, it is. – Roger Partridge

There was plenty for Vance to get her teeth into. Instead, she spat out a slur.

Not at all women, of course. Just the ones who hold office on the wrong side of the political aisle. Women who, if they held Green or Labour portfolios, would be feted as principled reformers. Instead, they were cast as traitors — Thatcherite girlbosses in power suits, slicing up the social contract for sport.

“Girl math,” Vance called their budget strategy. Which is ironic, given her own argument that billions in pay equity liabilities were already baked in.

But that doesn’t explain why the response to policy disagreement wasn’t argument, but insult. When the facts get complicated, name-calling is easier. – Roger Partridge

The real story was what came after — or rather, what didn’t. No outcry. No editorial walk-back. Just a bland statement from Stuff that the decision to publish the slur had been “carefully considered.” Because in today’s media ecosystem, misogyny isn’t a problem if the woman deserves it.

Even Dame Jenny Shipley, no stranger to political criticism, called the column “repulsive” and “threatening.” She also made the obvious point: when female leaders make hard decisions, they’re often singled out not for their policies, but for their gender. What’s new is seeing that pattern laundered through a newsroom. – Roger Partridge

And yet the column remained. No retraction. No apology. Just the steady hum of double standards — the unspoken rule that some women count, and others don’t.

This wasn’t commentary. It was a litmus test. For the media, for feminism, and for the boundaries of basic decency. Vance failed it. Her editors failed it. And the result was a textbook own goal.

In attempting to shame the Government’s female ministers, she turned them into the very thing her column claimed to defend: women on the receiving end of public misogyny. And this time, the smears didn’t come from trolls or Twitter. They came from the press gallery.

There’s a word for that, too. But I won’t print it here. – Roger Partridge

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m a strong woman and I can speak for myself. – Brooke van Velden

I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronising language that Andrea Vance used to reduce senior Cabinet Ministers to “girlbosses”, “hype-squads”, references to “girl math”, and “c***s”#. The women of this Government are hard-working, dedicated, and strong. No woman in this Parliament nor in this country should be subjected to sex-based discrimination. I’ll tell you who I do agree with. I agree with the former Minister for Women Jan Tinetti, who said that misogynistic abuse against women in public office was “an indictment on our society.” I actually think it’s very curious—and it’s a very curious feminist moment—when a former Minister for women repeats parts of a clearly misogynistic article in this House. – Brooke van Velden

(#I’ve used *s instead of spelling out that word because I can’t criticise its use by others if I use it myself.)

But PoO must declare that we have cause for cavil (and to employ more ”c” words).

Let’s not call it cremation when it is not a burning matter.

Let’s try drumming “aquamation” – or something similarly watery – into popular use.  –  Bob Edlin

When we’re referring to a man, the media in particular ought to say trans identifying male. They are not women. The law says that & any sane person knows they are a subset of men not women, no matter what they wear or call themselves. It’s confusing, grammatically wrong & false advertising. – Sharron Davies

My reaction, obviously, has just been to laugh – because, you know, I was 5 years old too once and I also had these kinds of dreams.

Labour’s reaction must be to cry, because this kind of loony nonsense that’s paraded as serious policy just makes it so much harder for them to get back into Government.

I mean, Labour will need the Greens much more than they have in the past, right?

We are no longer dealing with the Greens sitting at 5 percent where their nutty ideas can be ignored because they will not get as much out of coalition negotiations, we are now dealing with the Green Party consistently sitting at 10 percent and above.

A Labour-Greens government will be 3 quarters Labour and one quarter the Greens – and that’s not even counting the other dollop of crazy that’s going to come from the Māori Party.

Jet tax, death tax, wealth tax, crims out on the street – Labour must be weeping today.  – Heather du Plessis-Allan

Ahead of the Budget we got the same message we got from a barefoot, jandal wearing Chippy on day one of his post summer break.

More debt. Borrow more and spend more.   

Name an issue, pick a portfolio, any portfolio, where Labour has not criticised the government for cuts and promised to restore spending to pre-Willis levels. 

The latest example is pay parity, but that is just the latest in a long and growing list of items on the wishlist. 

In case they didn’t get the memo, Kiwis voted for cuts at the last election. If we’re doing our bit, the government ought to do its bit. That’s the politics of it. – Ryan Bridge

Willis could, and many argue, should go harder and faster as she’s still spending more than Grant Robertson.

But one thing you can be sure of, because it has come from Hipkins mouth repeatedly this week, is that spending and therefore borrowing would be higher right now had they be given a third term. – Ryan Bridge

Incredibly, keeping boys/men out of girls’/women’s spaces was remarkably easy before a pernicious ideology arrived to rip up the social contract and remove rights from females. The old cliche ‘good men stay out so bad men stand out’ was a) true and b) worked. – J.K. Rowling

Our House of Representatives has become a House of Chaos. For a long time we have warned that the standards have begun slipping in the House – as former Labour Minister Steve Maharey also wrote about in a Herald article last year. From relaxing the dress standards in our House to now having utter disorder and the worst of offensive words uttered in question time – no matter which side of opinion you’re on – and with no reaction or repercussion. How should we as politicians expect the people of New Zealand to view us all now? We have out of control MPs who flout the rules and intimidate others with outrageous hakas and offensive language and now getting banished for weeks. This is not democracy. These are the seeds of anarchy. We have MPs wearing t-shirts and sneakers, hats and, sunglasses and jerseys and even occasionally barefooted. What have we as so called ‘respectable parliamentarians’ become? Parliament has morphed into an embarrassment to the very people we are here purporting to represent. It is an outrage. And New Zealanders have a right to be outraged. And what do we as a House and even those in the political press gallery do? Collectively sit back and cower and hope no one notices, hope no one says the wrong thing. Where are the standards of democracy that we all as a county together once fought for and stood up for? To accept this drop in standards is to accept that we have given up. I have never seen this level of degradation of our democracy in my many years of politics. New Zealanders should be more fearful than outraged. We are in danger of losing this battle for decency, values, and the principles our country was built on. Standards must be restored, and now. Before it’s too late. – Winston Peters

 Brooke van Veldon’s mic drop moment was pointing out that Jan Tinetti, the questioner, a former Woman’s minister, a woman who railed against misogyny, was using misogyny by quoting a misogynistic article, authored by a woman to make her point. 

That led to applause and rightly so. 

It further exposed the Labour Party, and in fact most of the opposition benches, as frauds who are arguing the pay equity issue using bogus material and fake facts. 

The more this is debated the more hope you have that a wider grouping of us will tune in and get into the detail, because it is in the detail the truth lies. The equity laws, or rules, were a shambles and being milked by unions. 

But the tide turned because there seems genuine anger within the Government over what Andrea Vance was allowed to do.  – Mike Hosking

Being a public figure, you are open for this sort of stuff, and I have received more than most. It’s water off a duck’s back, especially from an angsty journalist.

But van Veldon, Collins and, as Vance calls them, the “hype squad” seem genuinely outraged and it is that outrage that turned, or at least will turn, the dial.

If they argue on fact, and the other side argue on emotion using lies, bogus material, and foul language, they will eventually lose.

Hence the dent so many thought was coming for the Government will never arrive.  – Mike Hosking

I won’t even use the C word in Scrabble. It just represents a vulgar low standard never to be stooped to. But I have heard my grown-up kids use it so I guess I am just out-of-touch.

Nevertheless, to hear it used in parliament is in keeping with the tone the Maori Party has set. Except it came from ACT. Which disappoints me.- 

Parliament exists to make laws that are as fair as possible. The basis for achieving that end can only be the individual. That’s the whole gist of the Treaty Principles Bill – rights lie in the equal humanity of individuals regardless of race and gender.  – Lindsay Mitchell

The Waitangi Tribunal is not a parallel Government elected by New Zealanders, even if it acts like it is – David Seymour

It seems like the left, who lost the election, are still just looking for someone to blame. – David Seymour

All around us are seemingly new norms. 

There are more and more indicators that what was once the right way to go about business now doesn’t matter. 

Punishments that once addressed indiscretions are now laughed at or negotiated away. 

Moral fibre that kept you on the straight and narrow is not just gone, but jettisoned and replaced by contempt and arrogance. 

If the President of America can bribe your crypto purchases, while flying on an illegal plane, former leaders can profit from negligence, and the Fourth Estate can pretend to be unbiased while ignoring the news and then cash in on their ineptitude, is it any wonder more and more of us long for the good old days?  – Mike Hosking 

 In the past there seems to have been a reluctance to go after overseas based student loan defaulters. What about when they all flocked back to New Zealand during the Covid times? That was the perfect time to collect the money owed. It is a kindness to the borrowers to keep that student loan debt at the front of their minds. If you can forget about a big debt, if there are other people screaming at you for money who are up in your grills, you’ll park it and put it to one side and think I’ll do that when I get a bonus at work, or I’ll do that one day, and then it gets so big that it becomes terrifying and you just don’t think about it. You will remain in blissful and wilful ignorance of the monies owed, and then the penalties and interest that blow out that original loan. Keep it at the forefront of their minds.

There are all sorts of arguments that have been put up by student loan thieves over the years. We’re the best and the brightest. If you come after us, we won’t come home. We’ll keep our enormous intellects overseas. Well, you can’t be that bloody bright if you don’t understand what a loan is, can you? It’s not a gift. It was a loan. You have to pay it back.

Another argument is, “it’s all right for you, your generation got free university education we had to pay for it”. Well, it was really the generation before that received free education. But back then, they really did only take the best and the brightest, numpties need not apply. Total enrolments at all universities in New Zealand was 16,524 in 1960. Today there are 177,000 university students in New Zealand. I’m quite happy to have a discussion about making unit centres of academic excellence and restricting access once again to only the very best and the brightest and pay for that education, absolutely. If we reduce it down from 177,000 to 16,000, we can afford that. Happy to have a chat about means testing but not until you do what most of us manage to do, even the most lowly qualified of us … pay your bills and pay what you owe.  –  Kerre Woodham

Whatever the punishment is going to end up being, it has to be harsh enough to stop the Māori Party doing this again – or at least try to stop them doing this again – because this is a strategy from them.

We need to see this stuff for what it is. This isn’t like Julie Anne Genter losing her rag in Parliament in the heat of the moment, apologizing, and then ending up with just a censure and perhaps never doing it again.

The Māori Party break the rules deliberately. This is their strategy, so you can assume that they will keep on doing it.

And the reason they keep on doing it is because it gets them attention. – Heather du Plessis-Allan

They say this is about tikanga – but it’s not about tikanga. Sneakers are not tikanga.

This is about breaking rules for attention – it’s a PR strategy.

3 days without pay is not going to deter them. To be honest, I don’t even know that 21 days without pay will deter them, but it surely has a better chance of doing it.

And for the record, a 21-day suspension is not that wild in the UK, where our Parliament derives from.

Just in the last two years, three MPs in the UK have copped suspensions of 30 days or more. In 2019, one guy was suspended for six months.

Now I don’t know that we will ever get order back into Parliament the way things have gone in the last few months, but if we don’t try, we definitely won’t.

So in that context, 21 days doesn’t seem overly harsh. – Heather du Plessis-Allan

Are the Greens bonkers? The Greens have come out and criticised Judith Collins for tinkering with the Public Service Commission census – that’s a voluntary survey run over three weeks and it’s a follow up to the initial 2021 survey of the same name. Now Judith Collins and her office had a look at the 2021 survey, and they suggested a few changes. They had thoughts about the census, and they said we don’t really need the questions about disability, rainbow identities, religion, te reo Māori proficiency levels, on-the-job training, and agencies’ commitment to the Māori-Crown relationship. Instead, Judith Collins’ office said, we want to put in a new question about whether public servants give excellent value for my salary, there are instances when I consider my work wastes taxpayers money, or I would rate my manager as someone who cares about the effect of my work. They’re focused on productivity rather than personal well-being, which seems to be what the 2021 survey was all about.  – Kerre Woodham 

 I think the Greens are frankly bonkers. I mean, how can they find it difficult that the public service should be delivering value for money? The Greens can go off on their fine little tangents. Frankly, that’s their problem. I think it’s very, very important. –  Judith Collins 

So the Maori Party have finally been suspended from Parliament. Good. About time someone had the stones to show these self-absorbed prima donnas the door.

This was not protest. It was petulance. These are elected MPs, not TikTok influencers doing a cultural flash mob. – Tui Vaeau 

Let’s get this straight: Parliament is not a bloody marae. It’s not a dancefloor, a church, or a safe space for tantrum-throwing grievance merchants. It’s the centre of the nation’s lawmaking and governance. It demands order, dignity, and at the very least, a working grasp of adult behaviour.

But no. These jokers decided to turn up and treat it like a stage for political theatre, waving their arms about and bellowing like fools mid-proceeding, and now they want sympathy? Please. This isn’t courage. It’s childish attention-seeking dressed up in feathers and entitlement. – Tui Vaeau 

Judith Collins was right. Civility matters. Rules matter. If Parliament lets this sort of tribal performance art slide, we might as well turn the place into a circus and charge admission. Come one, come all – watch the children in suits stomp, pout, and dance whenever they don’t get their way. – Tui Vaeau 

Suspend them. Fine them. And if they don’t like the rules, bugger off and start a drum circle somewhere else.

Parliament is for grown-ups. These ones don’t qualify. – Tui Vaeau 

Is it too much to ask Te Pāti Māori to at least act with the same integrity as Sinn Féin, the political wing of the Irish republican movement?

Like Te Pāti Māori (TPM) in Aotearoa, Sinn Féin rejects the Crown’s sovereignty over Northern Ireland and, before 1937, over the rest of Ireland.

Since it first won seats in the UK Parliament in 1917, it has refused to take them up, or the associated pay and perks.

From 1917 until today, those elected as Sinn Féin MPs have had the integrity to recognise that they couldn’t swear allegiance to a King they don’t believe is sovereign, take his pay and perks, or participate in his Parliament. –  Matthew Hootton

Believing sovereignty still lies with tangata whenua, TPM can’t and doesn’t believe that the King or Parliament is sovereign. Even to the extent it accepts the chiefs allowed Queen Victoria to set up a Government, including Parliament, it disagrees whether she was meant to be in charge of just the new settlers or of Māori as well.

In any case, TPM says the system of government that was set up is oppressive. – Matthew Hootton

Haka and waiata have become commonplace in today’s House of Representatives, including even from the public gallery on momentous occasions.

There’s no doubt any MP can perform haka and waiata in Parliament whenever taking a call. Since the English Parliament began in the 1200s and New Zealand’s in 1854, great demonstrations of anger have also been commonplace, as well as expressions of joy.

Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi appear less committed to balancing tikanga Māori and tikanga Pākehā in our Parliament, and letting its rules, conventions and traditions evolve.

Among the conventions inherited from tikanga Pākehā is the so-called two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule.

It’s a good rule, ensuring that however heated matters became, MPs couldn’t resort to a duel, and had to take that outside. Every culture, including tikanga Māori, has similar rules.  – Matthew Hootton

Today, the rule continues to demand that MPs speak from wherever they are when called, and that the two sides should stay two-and-a-half sword-lengths apart during debates, even when angrily bellowing at their opponents, which is also allowed.

The two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule applies to MPs doing a haka, whether in celebration or anger. Another rule is that everyone shuts up, listens and does what they’re told when the Speaker stands up. – Matthew Hootton

They say a haka was the only way for them to express their rage against Seymour and they should be able to do it in Parliament – but that is not in dispute.

The issue is that they ignored the Speaker and tried to physically intimidate Seymour and his colleagues by breaking the two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule – and then refused to apologise or appear individually to explain themselves to Parliament’s Privileges Committee, which enforces the rules.

It seems Ngarewa-Packer and Waititi demand respect for tikanga Māori, including haka, which Parliament rightly accepts. But they refuse to respect traditions of Parliament from tikanga Pākehā, like the two-and-a-half sword-lengths rule. So much for partnership. – Matthew Hootton

But, if they so disrespect Parliament and deny its legitimacy, the principled position would be henceforth to boycott it entirely, including not taking the pay and perks. That would at least mean they’d have some of the mana of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. – Matthew Hootton

“I don’t believe in pay equity. There – I’ve said it.”

This admission in a text from a friend this week made me laugh. This is what passes for scandalous these days for those of us formerly of the left. Having been catapulted out from our tribe courtesy their gender ideological erasure of women, we don’t know what to think anymore. Gone is the set menu of acceptable views we once unthinkingly shared, gone is the certainty that our side were the kind folk and gone are the kind folk tbh. Not so kind when you don’t agree with them. – Yvonne Van Dongen

We were also both tired of the leftist trope of the woman as downtrodden. In fact women are doing as well or better than men on many metrics – education, professional representation, political representation. Men could claim to be over-represented in numerous negative statistics such as suicide, homelessness, lifespan and workplace deaths.

More importantly for this issue, there are many low paid jobs largely done by men and we see no attempt to raise their wages via the pay equity mechanism – warehouse workers, industrial cleaners, construction labourers and meat processing workers for instance.

Would we support it if the same mechanism raised their wages? Possibly.  – Yvonne Van Dongen

Pay equity is the same pay for different work which has the same or similar level of skill, responsibility, and effort. The new pay equity scheme wasn’t extinguishing the practice my friend had now decided was foolish. The government was just attempting to reign in changes made by Labour that opened the floodgates to claims and comparators they considered unfair. Treasury estimates of a $17b price tag over four years for the previously agreed rates gave us Guilty Leftists pause for thought. –

My Guilty Leftist mate and I came to the conclusion that the number of public servants is excessive, many of whom are overpaid compared with the private sector. Workers in the public sector earn on average $10 an hour more than workers in the private sector. And it is the private sector that generates the wealth. The public sector just spends it. – Yvonne Van Dongen

Given the public outcry and protests around the country, it seemed like the left had the wind in their sails and would be flying this kite all the way to the election. That is, until the left showed us who they really were.

First, the propaganda arm of the left, mainstream media, published a column ostensibly defending pay equity but in truth dumping on women they disagreed with in the worst possible way. As well as phrases like ‘girl boss’ and ‘girl math’ the C-word was levelled at female cabinet ministers in the Coalition government. I doubt I’ve ever read anything as deeply offensive and sexist in msm. The Overton window of acceptability had widened so far now it appeared that all reason and judgement had been tossed out. Yet, despite the egregious sexism of the text, the rest of the media ignored the column as did politicians on the left.

Suddenly the truth was blindingly obvious. The left doesn’t care about women. They didn’t when they voted in the Prostitution Reform Bill, Self-Sex ID and the Conversion Therapy Bill, while insisting men could be women.  – Yvonne Van Dongen

For all their moral posturing, when it comes to the left, women have only ever been a tool in their armoury to beat the right with when the occasion arises. No group is better at whipping up emotional fervour. Standing up for women on principle not so much. – Yvonne Van Dongen

Will this sideshow damage the pay equity campaign? Has the left lost the moral high ground completely or is this a temporary set-back? Hard to say, but at least it’s emboldened me to raise doubts shared by myself and the other Guilty Leftist.

Actually I wish I’d called my substack The Guilty Leftist since I have a feeling I’ll be rethinking my position on a number of issues as time goes by.  – Yvonne Van Dongen

Te Pāti Māori has officially tossed aside any remaining credibility in favour of deceit, division and deliberate misinformation. – Matua Kahurangi

Te Pāti Māori has gone from political party to online agitator, using lies and racial hostility as weapons to bully, smear and distract. – Matua Kahurangi

This is not the politics of progress. It is the politics of poison. Talk about dirty politics.

Te Pāti Māori have a well-established pattern of targeting those who do not fit their ideological mould, especially white women in positions of power. It is a cynical tactic, dressed up as social justice but executed with a disturbing zeal for division. They shout down their opponents as racist while engaging in it themselves.

The refusal to remove the false post or issue an apology speaks volumes. This is not a mistake. It is a deliberate strategy. One that relies not on facts or reason, but on rage and resentment.

It is also deeply damaging. Misinformation like this corrodes public trust, erodes the quality of political debate and distracts from the real issues affecting Māori communities. If Te Pāti Māori were serious about change, they would be focused on solutions. Instead, they have chosen to peddle lies and stir conflict. – Matua Kahurangi

If this is allowed to pass without condemnation, then disinformation will become just another tool in the political arsenal. That should alarm everyone, regardless of party allegiance.

Te Pāti Māori had the chance to be a genuine voice for Māori in Parliament. But they have chosen to be provocateurs, arsonists in our political conversation. They do not speak for all Māori, and they certainly do not speak for decency, honesty or accountability.

New Zealanders deserve better than this. – Matua Kahurangi

Let’s strip away the political gloss and assess the Green Party’s 2025 budget for what it is: a document heavy on ideology, neo-Marxist buzzwords, and te reo, but dangerously light on pragmatism, economic credibility, and operational realism.

Ultimately, they have admitted in policy documents the terrifying anti-growth, anti-profit, nihilistic vision they have for our country. They have also demonstrated emphatically that they do not remotely live in the real world.  –  Ani O’Brien

What this alternative budget does do, is provide a reality check for all the hard working Kiwis who have given the Greens their vote because they are worried about the environment and certain culture wars issues. I say this as someone who has undergone this wake up call some years ago. This budget tells the public servants, the nurses, teachers, administrative staff etc that they are actually better off under the current Government. – Ani O’Brien

Fundamentally, their budget is about lifting government revenue by taxing New Zealanders an extra $88billion over four years. They have no plan for growing the economy. They seek to take from New Zealanders wages so that they can spend more. – Ani O’Brien

It is worth remembering that the Green Party only claims these policies will generate nearly $90 billion in new revenue over four years. This is an implausibly optimistic figure. The reality is you can’t just plug in tax rates and expect static revenue. People adapt and restructure in reaction to law changes and shifting systems. Sometimes they just straight up leave. These are not “guaranteed billions”. They are some pretty wild assumptions disguised as policy. – Ani O’Brien

The Inheritance Tax is a Death Tax. After a life of paying taxes, the Greens want to whip your wallet out of your cold dead hands to take a chunk of what you managed to save to leave to your children. Clearly this will encourage all sorts of jiggery-pokery in transferring wealth to children before death instead.

A 33% inheritance tax would be a cultural and economic shock to Kiwis, who have long expected to pass on farms, businesses, and homes to our kids. Politically speaking, this is not just a risky policy; it’s an electoral grenade. – Ani O’Brien

This kind of steep Inheritance Tax punishes lifelong saving behaviour and intergenerational planning. Hate to play the Greens at their own game but, culturally, Māori family structures could be disadvantaged by this too. Many Māori land holdings are held communally or via whānau trusts, and may face complex tax burdens if not exempted. – Ani O’Brien

In any case, this is a potential legal and cultural minefield. New Zealanders, in general, work, save, invest in homes or businesses, and plan to pass that legacy on to the next generation. The Greens’ Death (ahem) Inheritance Tax undermines that goal by confiscating a third of a lifetime savings if they are passed on. It punishes families who think inter-generationally! –

Family farms are often valued highly on paper even if they are struggling to generate a modest income. Family estates that include farmland and farming businesses may have to sell up pieces of land, break up businesses, or take on debt just to pay the Greens’ Inheritance Tax. Farming families shouldn’t have to sell parcels of land off because the taxman comes knocking when mum and dad have died. Rural communities who are already sceptical of Wellington are likely to see this as meddling urban elites targeting them.

The $1million threshold might seem high, but a tin shed perched on a postage stamp in central Auckland would fetch more than that at auction. Most residential properties in Auckland would tip families over the threshold.

And if the Greens think they are solving inequality with this tax, they severely underestimate the craftiness of well-paid lawyers. The ultra wealthy who can afford clever litigators are likely to be able to dodge the Inheritance Tax far more easily than the working class siblings who inherit the family home and a bit of savings. –

The Greens say that their Inheritance Tax is similar to Ireland’s Capital Acquisitions Tax. It is a pity they were not inspired to mimic Ireland’s Corporate Tax rate which is 12.5%. Instead, they want to raise our already high rate from 28% to 33%. This would place New Zealand at the very top of the developed world for most expensive Companies or Corporate Taxes. –

Contrary to our Greens’ bizarre anti-growth stance, the low rate has ensured that Ireland’s Corporate Tax take has soared due to the sheer volume of profits being declared in Ireland. This has, naturally, allowed the Irish Government to invest more in healthcare, education, and public infrastructure.

It is reasonable to be concerned that a Corporate Tax rate more than 20% higher than Ireland’s would have the opposite effect on the New Zealand economy. A total collapse in foreign direct investment could be one particularly terrifying outcome. Our current Government has been working to get our sluggish FDI going and whacking another 5% on companies would likely be suicide. More businesses would take their headquarters and operations elsewhere, taking large numbers of jobs with them. – v

A higher tax rate does not mean more taxes collected, I’m sorry to say.  – Ani O’Brien

Apart from removing any kind of competitive edge whatsoever, another downstream effect of a high corporate tax rate driving business out of the country is that GDP and GNP would take significant hits. Ironically, all of this would leave New Zealand more reliant than ever on our traditional industries like agriculture and primary industries. Not exactly the Greens’ favourite sector. Although, it remains to be seen if even these industries would survive the Greens’ war on profit and growth. – Ani O’Brien

The Greens are advocating for a 39% income tax rate to be applied at income over $120,000 and a 45% rate at $180,000. This is interesting given the foot stomping they have been doing this past week about the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. It seems they only want nurses to be paid more so that they can tax the additional income off them. – Ani O’Brien

Likewise most sergeants and senior sergeants in the New Zealand Police would cop the 39% tax rate (pun intended). As of June 2024, around 20,000 staff in New Zealand’s Public Service and selected agencies earned more than $120,000 in total remuneration, they would all be impacted.1 For context, just under half of the public service earn more than $100,000.2 Then there are the nearly 4,000 public servants who are paid more than $180,000 per year and who would qualify for the 45% tax rate. Most of these people are based in ultra-Green Wellington. This tax system presents them with a very real reason to shift their vote – likely to Labour.  – Ani O’Brien

The Greens, and supporters of the introduction of a Wealth Tax, argue that such a tax would make for a fairer and more equal tax system. They point to OECD and IMF economists calling for greater taxation of wealth to address rising inequality. They also enjoy broad support for the idea when it is framed up as a “wealth super-tax for the ultra-rich bastards”. Polling shows exemptions for the family home and higher thresholds make a difference in terms of levels of support.

On the other hand, opponents point to many of the same arguments I raised as reasons to oppose the 45% income tax rate. There is risk that high-net-worth New Zealanders would shift assets offshore, relocate, or restructure ownership. Just a few thousand wealthy families doing so could be seriously impactful on both the expected revenue from the Wealth Tax but also on the wealth of New Zealand. It would be tricky to implement in any case as valuing the various asset types accurately and over time is complex. The way value is calculated for residential property versus farmland or art or shareholdings, for example, is vastly different.

Of most concern to proponents of a Wealth Tax and those who are worried about inequality more generally, should be the very real issue of many New Zealanders being asset rich, but cash poor. Older Kiwis who have retired may have a very limited income (eg. pension) but be living in a valuable mortgage-free home. In real terms, their lifestyle can be practically impoverished, but the Greens would be demanding 2.5% on the value of the property. – Ani O’Brien

The Green Party maintains that their budget offers a transformative vision for New Zealand, aiming to reduce poverty and invest in public services. Whether you agree with their aims or not, it must be said that their approach to taxation paired with an enthusiasm for increased borrowing would spell disaster. We can be charitable and cite noble intentions, but there are significant risks, implementation concerns, and ideological overreach that could have serious consequences for New Zealand’s economy, competitiveness, and social cohesion.

It is bad news for the people National has called the “squeezed middle” because it is our productive classes, not just the rich who would suffer under these policies. As I mentioned, people like nurses, police officers, small business owners, farmers, and self-employed workers likely don’t see themselves as “rich”, but that is how the Greens want to treat them. At a time when NZ already has a brain drain problem, the Greens’ plan would intensify the rapid exit of critical skills.

This so-called alternative budget is more of a campaign manifesto than a governing framework. Its boldness is a credit to the imaginations of the Green Party but falls down when seriously considered in term of implementation. It is especially unworkable in our fragile economic and geopolitical climate. It’s redistribution via clumsy taxation. 

It is all fun and games for the increasingly unserious Green Party, but the real loser in this Budget is Chris Hipkins and his Labour Party. Hipkins will now need to rule out every single bit of madness the Greens have proposed or adopt it all as Labour Policy. Just as Luxon has had a jolly old time answering to some of David Seymour’s less popular policies, Hipkins too has to live and die by his potential coalition partners’ plans. And he thought Te Pāti Māori’s policy for Māori to retire a decade earlier than everyone else was bad… – Ani O’Brien

The idea of comparing teachers and nurses to better-paid male professions in order to wrangle more cash from Treasury reminds me of the discredited Labour Theory of Value.

It is demanding I pay you a lot of money for your painting because you spent a hundred hours on it and some other painter sold his work for a fortune.

Even if you think this is a good idea we’d be borrowing to meet the cost. And it would be expensive. – Damien Grant

Cutting spending requires courage. It means doing the right thing knowing that you will be subject to abuse, vitriol and spite. –

New Zealand has endured three decades of low productivity, restrictive land use laws, falling education standards and high taxes which have resulted in the average Kiwi earning 75c compared to our Australian cousins.

If you want to complain about pay equity let’s talk about that!

Van Velden is one of a small cohort of ministers confronting the structural drivers of our relative decline. Like Messrs Bishop and Court in the Resource Management Act, Stanford and Seymour in education and Penk in construction, these ministers are seeking to permanently shift the trajectory of their sectors. – Damien Grant

The concept of pay equity was not killed by these changes as has been reported; claims can still be brought if the sector has over seventy percent women and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the work has been historically undervalued because of the preponderance of females employed. The threshold has been raised from being ‘arguable’, to having ‘merit’.

Secondary teachers miss out, because 40% of them (according to the 2018 census) are…men. Which debunks the idea of ‘women’s work’, I’d have thought. It would require some creative girl math to make that forty percent disappear.

The impact on the Crown accounts will be substantial and for this taxpayers of all genders should take a moment and give thanks to the Minister of Workplace Relations and Safety for having the courage and taking the political heat for doing what everyone knows had to be done but were unwilling to endure the opprobrium that van Velden has enjoyed for doing the right thing.

And as for the abuse; van Velden can take solace from another outstanding political leader of uncommon courage, Margaret Thatcher; “ Never worry about anyone who attacks you personally; it means their arguments carry no weight and they know it.” – Damien Grant

2 Comments | politics, quotes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Word of the day

18/05/2025

Verecund – bashful; modest; shy.

Leave a Comment » | language | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Milne muses

18/05/2025

Leave a Comment » | Books, musings | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Beautifying the blogosphere

18/05/2025

 

Leave a Comment » | nature | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Woman of the day

18/05/2025

Leave a Comment » | women | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Neatness doesn’t come naturally

18/05/2025

Some are born neat; some achieve neatness and some have neatness thrust upon them.

Those who are orderly by birth or habit find it difficult to tolerate or even understand the rest of us who are not and I don’t blame them because untidiness irritates and confounds me too. However, while I like neatness and know it makes life much simpler and less stressful it’s not a state which comes naturally to me.

I blame it on being a child of children of the depression who had been brought up with the injunction waste not, want not. Let’s face it anyone whose mother washed, dried and reused plastic sandwich wrap is going to have a problem determining what’s wanted and what’s waste.

This explains why I can’t throw out left over food straight away but must pop it into the fridge and wait until it dies quietly before consigning it to the rubbish. Similarly, I can’t get rid of other things as soon as their usefulness or beauty has passed.

Instead, they must serve their time in storage then only after a considerable length of time has led to a further deterioration in both appearance and value and when something with a more pressing need for cupboard space forces them out can they be discarded.

This totally irrational and unnecessary determination to keep things which have long since passed their use-by dates means that neatness is a rare and fleeting state with me and the last time I came as near as I ever get to total tidiness on the domestic front was some months ago when a spruce up of the office was thrust upon me by some relatively minor alterations which resulted in significantly more storage space.

My farmer, encouraged by the addition of new places to put things and with some not insignificant assistance from both our office fairy and accountant, cleared up his territory which made the contrast with the disorder on and around my desk even more marked.

Accepting the inevitable I began the massive job of turning the chaos of my corner into some semblance of order. Two and a half days later the desk was clear, drawers were tidy, shelves were stacked in an orderly fashion, loose bits of paper were filed securely and the fifth load of rubbish was burning in the drum.

Encouraged by the novel experience of being able to find what I wanted at first glance I moved with the enthusiasm of a new convert from the office to the hall cupboard and set about tidying it too.

Fired with success in this quarter I advanced with missionary zeal to the spare room where a similarly cathartic process took place. From there I strode with determination in my heart and a large rubbish bin in both hands to cut a swathe through the mess in the kitchen, living room and finally the laundry.

My excitement over the resulting and unusual state of order from one end of the house to the other was boundless. I not only knew where things should be, I could be totally confident that that’s were they would be.

With the house so much neater life became so much easier, but alas the tidiness was temporary. Slowly and insidiously chaos crept back, furnishing me with the proof that for those of us to whom neatness doesn’t come naturally and on whom tidiness is thrust the real challenge in life lies not just in attaining neatness but in maintaining it.

© Ele Ludemann

In a past life I wrote weekly columns for the ODT, this is one of them.

4 Comments | domestic, musings | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Word of the day

17/05/2025

Invigilate – to supervise candidates during an examination; to keep watch, monitor.

Leave a Comment » | food | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Woman of the day

17/05/2025

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Girls can do maths too

17/05/2025

Andre Vance’s column throwing personal insults at women MPs has rightly been criticised, not least for its use of an expletive.

Education Minister Erica Stanford picks up on another fault – it’s reference to “girl math”

I’ve been called many things as a female Member of Parliament. Some of them unprintable. I’ve developed a thick skin, it comes with the job. But here’s one label I won’t let slide: “girl math.”

In a recent opinion piece, the term was used to criticise the Government’s upcoming budget. Political debate is healthy, and robust discussion is a key part of our democracy. But when that criticism leans on a throwaway phrase that casually implies girls are inherently bad at maths, it stops being clever or provocative—it becomes damaging.

As the Minister of Education, I spend a great deal of time in classrooms. I talk to students, teachers, and principals. I ask questions. I listen. And again and again, when I sit down with girls in schools across the country, I hear the same refrain: “I’m just not good at maths.”

It starts early, around ages 6 to 8, and by the time they’re choosing subjects for NCEA or thinking about university too many young women have already taken themselves out of the running for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Not because they aren’t capable. But because somewhere along the way, someone or something made them believe they weren’t good enough. Last year, while there were more Year 13 girls than boys who participated in NCEA, just 2600 girls took UE Calculus, compared to 4,300 boys.

That’s why the phrase “girl math” cuts deeper than perhaps the author intended. It’s not just a joke. It reinforces a stereotype that girls are less logical, less numerate, and less suited to fields that require quantitative thinking.

We’re working hard to reverse the decline in maths achievement. This week, I announced a $100M investment over 4 years to lift maths outcomes in NZ. That includes the rollout of a new Maths Check for Year 2 students, targeted support, and the equivalent of 143 maths intervention teachers in primary schools.

We also refreshed the maths curriculum and sent out over 830,000 maths workbooks, textbooks and materials to primary and intermediate schools.

But government policy can only do so much. We also need a cultural shift. We need to send a clear and consistent message to young women: you are capable. You belong in the maths classroom. You belong in STEM. Throwaway comments, especially those made from positions of influence, widen the confidence gap.

They tell girls, “this isn’t for you.” And when we do that, we all lose. Our economy loses out on talented engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs. Our girls lose out on careers that are exciting, challenging, and often better paid.

Tearing down the confidence of young girls to make a political point is not okay. We should be building up our young women, not pulling them down with lazy stereotypes. Because the truth is, the gender gap in maths achievement isn’t biological—it’s social. It’s cultural. And it’s entirely solvable.

So yes, scrutinise our policies. Hold us to account. But never call it “girl math.” Our girls deserve better.

And don’t call it “girl maths” either. That is better grammatically here where the word is always plural but with or without the s the term feeds the stereotype that the subject isn’t for girls which is wrong.

Girls can do maths and given the need for a lot more pupils to be taking STEM subjects, all of them, girls and boys,  should be encouraged to study it and not be put off by outdated and erroneous ideas of  intellectual ability constrained and dictated by sex.

1 Comment | education, politics | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Word of the day

16/05/2025

Archaea – microorganisms which are similar to bacteria in size and simplicity of structure but radically different in molecular organisation; a group of micro-organisms that are similar to, but evolutionarily distinct from bacteria; usually single-celled, prokaryotic microorganisms of a domain (Archaea) that includes methanogens and those of harsh environments (such as acidic hot springs, hypersaline lakes, and deep-sea hydrothermal vents) which obtain energy from a variety of sources (such as carbon dioxide, acetate, ammonia, sulfur, or sunlight).

Hat Tip: Jerry Coyne

Leave a Comment » | language | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Woman of the day

16/05/2025

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

That was then . . .

16/05/2025

Charted Daily has found a comment from the Dominion Post:

That was in 2022.

Contrast that with the comment from the paper this week :

Stuff sent a response through its communications team, to be attributed to a spokesperson: “The issue of pay equity has caused robust debate.

“This is not the first time our editors have allowed the use of this word – it is carefully reviewed by experienced editors and on this occasion it was decided it was acceptable usage in this context.

“Andrea Vance, and her editor Tracy Watkins, are two of the country’s foremost political writers. Stuff has also published a spectrum of views on this issue, including today from the Minister of Finance.”

The word and personal criticism was not condoned by the paper then. It should not be now.

The issue of pay equity, which was the topic of the column in question, has raised strong feelings and strong criticism is expected and accepted. But that criticism should be civil, directed at the policy not any of the people promoting it, and it should be done without recourse to obscene language.

1 Comment | media, politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

PSA takes women back decades

16/05/2025

The Public Service Association is shooting itself in the foot with legal action opposing the government’s restrictions on public servants working from home.

One of its arguments is that the move disadvantages women who do the bulk of work caring for children and the elderly and domestic duties.

The big flaw in that is that public servants are being paid to do the work they are employed to do, not to look after family members and attend to housework.

The PSA argument takes women back decades when their place was deemed to be looking after their children, houses and gardens with dinner ready to put on the table when their husbands got home from doing real work.

If those working from home have the time and energy to combine it with child and elderly care, housework and meal preparation too little is being asked of them by their bosses and too much is being expected of taxpayers.

2 Comments | employment, politics | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Word of the day

15/05/2025

Vituperative – bitter  and abusive; marked by harshly abusive criticism; uttering or given to censure; criticising in an angry and cruel way; characterised by or of the nature of vituperation.

(Thanks to  Point of Order who used it in a sentence here).

Leave a Comment » | Uncategorized | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Woman of the day

15/05/2025

Leave a Comment » | war, women | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

What will Labour do?

15/05/2025

Parliament’s Privileges Committee has recommended a 21-day suspensions for co-leaders Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Rawiri Waititi and a  seven-day suspension for MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke.

The suspension doesn’t just mean the MPs can’t go to parliament, it also suspends their pay.

That recommendation will go to the House and be voted on by all MPs.

These comments from committee chair Judith Collins suggest the vote won’t be unanimous:

Collins said the committee had been “collegial” through the six-month-long process and only butted heads in the end when it came to handing down the penalties.

“Even [the Green Party and the Labour Party] are differing from each other.

“It’s a very severe penalty compared to what has been awarded in the past, it’s not only a suspension from the House, it’s a suspension of salary.

“But then, we haven’t seen that level of behaviour before.” . . .

It won’t be a surprise if the Māori Party doesn’t support the recommendation, nor if Green MPs think it is too harsh, but what will Labour do?

It is very unlikely to be able to govern without TPM’s support but the prospect of TPM in government will turn a lot of voters off.

Labour has to weigh up supporting the recommendation and standing up for good behaviour in parliament with the risk of hurting the party it will need as a coalition partner.

 

1 Comment | politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Budget from another planet

15/05/2025

The Green Party is supposed to stand for the planet. Its alternative budget is so deluded it looks like it comes from another one :

The Greens “alternative” budget reveals their desire to live in a ludicrous la-la land, National Party finance spokesperson Nicola Willis says.

“The mind boggles that – even in these economic times – Labour and the Greens are hellbent on confiscating wealth and income from hardworking Kiwis and returning to the bad old days of more tax and inflationary spending that wrecked the economy.

“That’s even before you bring Te Pāti Māori’s absurd circus into the mix.

“The idea that raiding New Zealanders’ incomes will somehow make the country better off is offensive to every New Zealander struggling with the cost of living crisis that Labour and the Greens created. This is truly magical thinking.

“We can assume that having no businesses left in New Zealand is the ultimate goal for the Labour-Greens-Te Pāti Māori coalition of chaos.

“While the Greens’ proposals are not grounded in any kind of fiscal reality, their approach is very similar to Labour’s. It’s all about higher taxes, more spending and ballooning debt.

“In normal times, it would make sense to call on Labour to rule out letting the Greens anywhere near an economic portfolio in a future coalition. But the reality is, they are as economically illiterate as each other. The only difference is the Greens are more honest in telling New Zealanders just how illiterate they are. . . 

Among the Green’s proposals are higher income taxes, and new wealth and inheritance taxes.

The former would catch nurses, teachers, police officers and others that the Greens purport to support.

The latter could hit those people again and would force many single parents, widowers and widows out of their homes.

The proposal of a 2.5% annual tax on a couple’s net assets over $4 million and a 33% tax on inheritances over a $1 million threshold would sabotage most small businesses and among the hardest hit would be  intergenerational family farms.

Like so many economically illiterate policies from the left, this alternative budget is all about taxing and spending and nothing about economic growth which is the only sustainable way to afford more of what they want.

Perhaps on another planet it’s possible to tax your way to prosperity but it certainly isn’t on this one.

1 Comment | business, economy, Farming, politics, tax | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Word of the day

14/05/2025

Ambrosial – exceptionally pleasing to taste or smell; sweet and fragrant; especially delicious or fragrant; pertaining to or worthy of the gods; divine.

Leave a Comment » | language | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

Woman of the day

14/05/2025

Leave a Comment » | women | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by homepaddock

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »