Comment: Stuart Nash’s text to former National minister Chris Finlayson exemplifies the perpetuation of two barriers that keep women out of parliamentary politics: men’s networks and their misogynistic chatter, and the long-hours culture that has been a norm for building a successful political career.
Perhaps Nash, a New Zealand First candidate at the time, expected a blokey buy-in to his misogyny when he texted Finlayson that National MP Katie Nimon “took nine months off on full pay, went back for a week, then took another month off. Laziest MP I have ever come across. Nice woman, but ill-suited to the rigours of being an electorate MP”.
Nash was reiterating the ‘always available’ work culture common to high-powered political and corporate cultures around the world. Through this lens, taking time to care for children amounts to laziness.
Media were quick to report that Nash had got it wrong. Nimon only took 10 weeks parental leave after the birth of her son, then returned to electorate work and later to Parliament after six months. But what if she had taken six months, or more, of full parental leave?
Primary carers can claim 26 weeks of paid leave, if they are eligible, and a further 26 weeks of unpaid leave. Why shouldn’t Members of Parliament take the leave entitlements available? In work cultures where taking full parental leave is interpreted as a lack of work commitment, women will continue to be disadvantaged.
Interestingly, Nash’s attempt to get Finlayson to buy in to his misogyny failed dismally. Instead, Finlayson made political hay with it on his podcast and Nash subsequently resigned while invoking his “strong, independent daughters” (I can’t be a misogynist, I have daughters!).
Nash underlined that his message to Finlayson was private. However, both coalition Government and Opposition MPs interpreted it as indicative of deep-seated attitudes that made him unfit for Cabinet. It is not unreasonable to think that privately expressed prejudices will affect public policy positions.
Senior National MPs were quick to condemn Nash’s misogyny. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon accused him of channelling the manosphere.
At one level, this played out as the typical bad guy/good guy scenario. The ‘good guys’ came out publicly defending Nimon and slamming the private comments of the ‘bad guy’ – the unreconstructed bloke and his ideas from the 1950s.
But the problem with the bad guy/good guy playbook is that it often serves to obscure deeper social, economic, and political issues that perpetuate discrimination against women in the workplace and outside of it.
If we distil the cause to just a few bad blokes, then we don’t really need to put much effort or resources into fixing things. Just call out bad behaviour from time to time and she’ll be right.
Consider how Nash’s comments handed National an opportunity to pose on the side of women’s rights despite the party’s track record on equal pay and domestic violence.
The Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 put a stop to 33 ongoing pay equity claims and made it more difficult for women workers to bring future claims. The Government argued that operating under the existing act had become “unworkable” and “unaffordable”. In other words, women’s right to equal pay counts as a nice to have, not a need to have when it comes to the budget.
Likewise, National is happy to appear as allies in the fight against sexual violence when it doesn’t cost money. It has promised to do away with good character assessments for sexual offending, which won’t cost much at all.
It is also campaigning on another low-cost proposal – amending the Crimes Act to clarify that sexual consent must be actively given and that silence does not mean consent.
Of course, the opposition parties do not oppose these measures and National could amend the Crimes Act before the election. But then what new policies would National have to signal to women voters that it supports their dignity and rights?
The Government has a poor record on supporting the hard work involved in addressing violence against women. On its watch, police have deprioritised responses to family harm.
It also presided over the “pause” of ACC’s Hikitia! programme that funded sexual violence prevention initiatives such as RespectEd.
In addition, it has proposed cuts to the Centre for Family Violence and Sexual Violence Prevention, which coordinates governmental and community responses. While the coalition claims this is not a cost-cutting exercise, it has not redirected funds saved to more efficient anti-violence initiatives.
So, while it’s great to hear National MPs and even the PM condemn Nash’s misogyny, the record of the past three years shows they stand up for women when it doesn’t cost them anything.
