Protest in Tauranga over pay equity changes
In Red Square, Tauranga care and support worker and E Tū union member Tanya Oomen said, 'We've had enough.'
She said the Government was 'cutting women's pay without any warning, without consultation'.
'National has forced through a law change that will take money directly out of women's pockets across New Zealand.'
She said National was doing it to 'make their Budget add up' and was turning its back on the thousands of women who fought for equal pay, 'all to fund tax breaks for tobacco companies and landlords '.
Oomen described herself as a care and support worker in the disability sector, working in a house with six adults with intellectual and physical disabilities.
She said she did 24-hour shifts, only half of those hours double-staffed.
She was expected to sleep on-site, care for her charges, cook, clean, take them to activities and appointments, keep them connected to family and friends, and check their finances.
'I'm more than an arse-wiper. Much more.
'We have been fighting so hard and for so long, and all we want is a decent wage for the hard work that we do.'
New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) member Conor Fraser said it was 'gutting to see how quickly changes can be made to an Equal Pay Act that has been fought for for decades'.
Fraser said he was part of a pay equity settlement last March.
'I've been part of a team that went through the process of understanding what the legislation is and how you enforce it and how you correct inequities that have existed for a long period of time.
'For others to not have that opportunity, it's wild.'
Mount Maunganui Labour Party member Heidi Tidmarsh organised the protest, led by Labour Party list MP Jan Tinetti.
NZEI staff member Kirsty McCully said the change had added barriers to women being able to achieve pay justice.
'It takes us back to before 1972 when the Equal Pay Act was first brought into force.
'I think what it really does is negates a whole lot of amazing work [by] campaigners like Kristine Bartlett.
McCully works with early childhood teachers and as a result of this change, 93,000 teachers have had their pay equity claim set back.
Advertise with NZME.
'It's devastating, and it really is a kick in the guts.
'It makes the idea that we can achieve wage justice almost impossible.'
McCully said many women were already struggling in the cost-of-living crisis and trying to hold their families together.
She said the Government was saying $3 billion a year for landlords was affordable but $1.7b in wage justice for women is not.
'The Government's making decisions that impact on a small number of the wealthy to privilege their interests over the interests of the vast workers who have had wage injustice for generations, and now that's going to be entrenched.'
On a visit to Tauranga on Friday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said his Government is 'very, very committed to pay equity, and avoiding and eliminating sex-based discrimination'.
'But we also need to make sure we have one system that is robust, that's workable, that's sustainable and actually focused on the core purpose of the legislation, that is about eliminating sex-based discrimination, rather than bringing in broader labour market conditions you often see in a bargaining round.'
Luxon said individuals and unions could still apply to have pay equity claims processed and the Government had put money aside to deal with these in future.
He said the changes aimed to encourage more specific pay-equity claims.
'We've seen claims that have up to 90 different occupations, when we see comparisons between fisheries officers and librarians.
'What we need to have is a hierarchy of comparators to make sure the system is more workable and gives people more certainty.'
He described the Opposition framing of the review as 'a little bit disingenuous' and said saving money was not the primary reason for the change.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
29 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Real countries need to keep learning about their history
Together, these savings will cover about 0.1% of the increased defence spending, while endangering the history 'real countries' need. Without history, we may as well join Australia. Public historians' first task, beginning in 1945, was to assemble the official histories of New Zealand in World War II, a massive project. Large public investments were also made in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, from 1983, and Te Ara, the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, from 2001. The public historians maintain and update these, as they do New Zealand History websites, including 'New Zealanders at War'. Ministry assurances that life support for these will continue ring hollow in the absence of people to do the job. These resources are richer, more human and more durable memorials than any cenotaph. They will be hard to revive once expertise is lost. Is this how we honour our war dead? The ministry's online resources have about seven million users a year, 70% of them New Zealanders, including many secondary school students. Our recent commitment to New Zealand history in schools is already in trouble. History posts in universities have also been cut, leaving few to teach the teachers. New Zealand history posts at the University of Auckland, for example, have at least halved (to less than three FTE) over the past decade or so. Behind this is the Government policy of funding arts students at less than half the rate of science students. History converts information into understanding, a key skill for anyone, and is essential to the social capital that glues our communities together and helps them understand each other. The big histories funded by Marsden, including two of my own books, could never have been attempted without it. They engaged with other histories as well as New Zealand's own. The logic was precisely that 'a real country', even a small one, should contribute its bit to the global knowledge on which it draws. The Government might have ditched these global aspirations, restricted Marsden history and other humanities and social sciences funding to New Zealand subjects and/or introduced other reforms – to filter out 'flakier' projects, for example. But it did not reform; it just killed the whole thing off. We still have much to learn about the history of New Zealand and its interactions with the world. Marsden projects contributed to filling these gaps, for example: 'Second World War Conscription and New Zealand Society'; 'Slavery in Māori society: myths and realities to c. 1860'; 'Researching ourselves: social surveys in New Zealand'. It will no longer do so. National Party governments, or National-led coalitions, have supported public historians from the first, since 1949. Decimating them goes against all 76 years of National Party practice. The Dictionary of NZ Biography project was initiated by a National Government. The Marsden Fund, with a brief always including history, humanities and social sciences, was set up by Simon Upton in 1994, as a minister in Jim Bolger's Government. Reasonable National Party MPs today need to recapture their Government and join the rest of us in repelling this attack on New Zealand history and identity.
RNZ News
41 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Pay equity: Five unions to take government to court over law changes
Pay equity protesters voice their opinions outside Parliament in May. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi Five unions are taking the government to the High Court over changes to pay equity laws. The sudden and controversial changes cancelled existing claims from mostly female-dominated jobs and made it harder for new claims to succeed . Workplace Minister Brooke van Veldengave a figure of 33 current claims that would be stopped, as the legislation was put through under urgency in May. The Nurses Organisation, Tertiary Education Union, Educational Institute, Post-Primary Teachers' Association, and Public Service Association argued the new rules breached the Bill of Rights Act. "The legal challenge argues the coalition government's legislation breaches three fundamental rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process," the unions said in a joint statement. "The case gives workers who have been denied their right to challenge gender-based pay discrimination a chance to challenge the government in court. If successful, a Parliamentary Select Committee must consider the declaration of inconsistency and a Parliamentary debate must occur. The government is then required to formally respond." The claim would be formally lodged on 29 August at the High Court in Wellington following a rally by women whose pay equity claims had been cancelled, the unions said. A spokesperson for the office of Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden told RNZ: "The Bill was considered for consistency with the Bill of Rights Act before introduction, and the Acting Attorney-General concluded the Bill appeared to be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act". Public Service Association national Secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said the government avoided proper scrutiny, bypassing consultation. "We are asking the High Court to declare that the government's actions are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 because of the discrimination New Zealand women will face as a result of the government's action," she said. "The government silenced women but we know the High Court will listen to our claims. This is just the start of our campaign for pay equity for New Zealand women and we will be leaving no stone unturned to achieve pay equity. "The decision to cancel claims that were about to be heard by the Employment Relations Authority is inconsistent with the constitutional foundations of New Zealand which do not provide for the government to interfere with the judicial system in this way." Educational Institute national secretary Stephanie Mills said the government did not follow a democratic process. "The scrapping of the teachers claim without consultation and under urgency was a kick in the guts for our teacher members after years of blood, sweat and money getting the claim moving," she said. "We'd had five years of work on it with hundreds of interviews with members about their work, and it was a genuinely joint process with the Ministry of Education and their pay equity team." NZNO delegate and Plunket nurse Hannah Cook said nurses and care workers were devastated by the scrapping of their pay equity claims. "Plunket nurses were so close to finally having our hard work recognised. Nurses and care workers are the backbone of a caring society and the coalition government needs to value us. These changes don't just impact us. They impact our families, our livelihoods and our quality of life," she said. "The coalition government has shown it doesn't value us nurses and those of us in women dominated workforces. It is 2025 for goodness sake. We shouldn't still be paid less than those in male dominated occupations." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Newsroom
an hour ago
- Newsroom
Unions launch legal action over pay equity changes
When Associate Attorney-General Paul Goldsmith wrote his advice on whether the Government's pre-Budget changes to the pay equity regime breached human rights, he – likely unwittingly – provided those affected with a roadmap. 'The changes made by the Bill can be expected to have the effect of tightening access to the pay equity process and pay equity settlements,' he wrote in the document, known jargonistically as a BORA vet. These changes may result in someone facing discrimination based on their gender, he said. 'I have considered whether the combined effect of these changes may discriminate on the basis of sex by making it more difficult for a person to access a non-discriminatory rate of pay or to take steps to maintain pay equity.' But if that's the case, they could file a legal claim. 'On balance, I have concluded that these provisions do not engage s 19 because a person in this situation could still take court proceedings in order to obtain an effective remedy through other means – for example, seeking a remedy in the High Court for a breach of s19 of the Bill of Rights Act.' Cue the court case. On August 29, a collection of five unions will file their legal case with the High Court, claiming the coalition Government's controversial changes to pay equity legislation breach three fundamental rights: freedom from gender-based pay discrimination, the right to natural justice, and the right to fair legal process. This comes hot on the heels of Māori health providers and the greyhound racing industry calling on the court to declare the coalition Government's changes have broken the law. The claim will see New Zealand Nurses Organisation (NZNO), Public Service Association (PSA), Post-Primary Teachers Association (PPTA), NZEI Te Riu Roa primary teachers' union, and the Tertiary Education Union (TEU) seek declarations from the court that the Government's changes to pay equity law are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They will be represented by Rodney Harrison KC and Peter Cranney – the lawyer who argued Kristine Bartlett's precedent-setting pay equity case. These unions represent 24 of the 33 claims that were wiped when the coalition introduced legislation without consultation, and passed under urgency, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill ahead of the May Budget. The 33 claims are estimated to have covered more than 150,000 workers. The Government says this change has saved them from paying $13 billion of taxpayers' money in future wages and salaries to those working in female-dominated workforces, whose work has been historically under-valued due to gender-based discrimination. The Government also tightened the framework, by lifting the threshold for the percentage of women workers in a sector from 60 percent to 70 percent and changed the way equitable pay is determined through the comparator system. So far, no claims have been filed and all-but the nurses say they see no way towards bringing a successful claim under the new regime. 'This is about more than pay' In a press release, TEU national secretary Sandra Grey said: 'If Brooke van Velden and Christopher Luxon thought avoiding a select committee process would allow them to dodge accountability for stealing $12.8 billion from low paid women workers, we've got news for them.' Other union heads called it a 'kick in the guts'. And now the Government is faced with striking secondary teachers and nurses. On Budget Day, when talking about her decision to overhaul the pay equity regime, in the context of delivering a 'responsible budget', Finance Minister Nicola Willis said: 'In addition to pay equity settlements, the Government will fund future pay rises for women-dominated public-sector workforces through the normal collective bargaining process.' Last month, Health NZ offered nurses a 2 percent pay increase this year, followed by 1 percent next year. They then moved to strike. High school teachers were offered 1 percent. They have voted to begin rolling strikes next month. And primary teachers are due to meet this week over collective negotiations. The Government has come out swinging at striking public sector employees – by holdings press conferences scolding the nurses' and teachers' unions. Meanwhile, Public Service Minister Judith Collins has also made comments suggesting the coalition could be considering limiting the options open to those wanting to take industrial action; if true the Government could be looking to dampen one more mechanism used by female-dominated workforces to secure pay increases. Pay equity changes and the recent strike action are no doubt linked. The new regime effectively locks out the 25,000 secondary teachers who would have been covered by the teachers' pay equity claim, as the workforce doesn't reach the new 70 percent women workers threshold. 'Our claim was built on years of rigorous, evidence-based work, carried out in good faith under a process agreed with previous governments. To have that work discarded by political decree is a betrayal—not just of teachers, but of every woman in Aotearoa New Zealand whose work has been historically undervalued,' PPTA president Chris Abercrombie said. 'This is about more than pay. It's about whether our country honours its commitments to fairness, equity, and the rule of law. We will not stand by while those principles are trampled. Our members deserve better. Our students deserve better. And our democracy deserves better.' Govt 'undermined the judiciary' PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimmons told Newsroom this litigation was about getting a fair hearing. 'We know that the High Court will give us a fair hearing, and we will be advocating similar arguments in the High Court that we would have advocated had the government run a proper select committee process.' This legal action stood alongside the country's first ever people's select committee, which was hearing from communities affected by the pay equity changes. The committee, which kicked off last week, received more than 1500 submissions. The unions' claim would asks the court to rule the changes breached section 19 of the human rights law that says everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination – in this case, gender-based discrimination. But Fitzsimmons said the Government had also breached women workers' right to a fair legal process and the executive had 'undermined the judiciary'. The executive's decision to cancel claims that were about to be heard by the Employment Relations Authority was inconsistent with the country's constitutional foundations, which clearly stipulated a separation of the different arms of government. A Treasury paper from December, released last month, laid out the Government's options for closing the funded sector contingency – the money set aside for covering pay equity settlements for those working in privately owned businesses, but in sectors that provided a public good and were largely funded by the Government, such as the aged care sector. The paper revealed that of the $12.8b estimated total pay equity costs over the forecast period, the funded sector contingency accounted for $9.6b of that (75 percent of estimated pay equity costs). Care and support workers (and one other redacted workforce) were described as the 'key claims with significant estimated costs' in the funded sector. The care and support workers claim had already been deemed to have merit under the previous pay equity framework, and Treasury officials pointed out the Employment Relations Authority had indicated it would hear the claim during the first week of May. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden announced the changes on May 6, without prior warning or consultation – as care and support workers were preparing briefs of evidence for the authority. The legislation passed through all stages under urgency, with no select committee process. 'We have separation of powers in New Zealand,' Fitzsimmons said. 'And what we saw from the Government, under the cover of darkness and through urgency, was the cancelling of claims that the judicial arm was about to hear through the Employment Relations Authority.' Now many of these care and support workers were back on the minimum wage, she said. While the Government released pay equity documents at the end of last month, many of them included heavy redactions – especially when it came to legal advice. Fitzsimmons said this court process would uncover elements of those documents that had been withheld. 'We will see the full horror of the betrayal of New Zealand women by this government, and we will be taken seriously, and women will be given a voice.' What a win in court could mean While the High Court could rule that the Government's pay equity changes had breached human rights law, that doesn't mean the Government has to change the law. And the court has no power to tell the Government what it can and can't do when it comes to legislating. But Fitzsimmons tells Newsroom a win would still be a big deal. It would also add an immense amount of scrutiny to the law and the legislative process. If the court was to declare the pay equity changes are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act then Attorney-General Judith Collins would have to notify Parliament within six sitting days. From there, the matter would be referred to a select committee for scrutiny, where they would have four months to report back to Parliament. The Government would then have a further six months to present its response to the declaration and the committee's report, and from there a parliamentary debate would be held within the next six sitting days. 'The consequences for the Government and for Parliament are significant.' Legal challenges piling up The unions' legal challenge comes as the Government faces off in court against other aggrieved communities. The pay equity case will come after a High Court hearing of an unprecedented claim from a group of Māori health providers over the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora. The providers, led by Lady Tureiti Moxon, are also calling on the court to declare the shutting of the Māori Health Authority breaches the Bill of Rights Act. And, in the first case of its kind, the group is also asking the court to declare the move inconsistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi. Last week, Greyhound Racing NZ had its case for interim relief heard, ahead of a more substantive judicial review of Cabinet's decision to ban greyhound racing in New Zealand. The decision, which was announced without consultation with the industry, didn't follow the proper process, making it unlawful, former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson KC told the High Court last Thursday. But those acting on behalf of the Crown – and ultimately Racing Minister Winston Peters – said the Government was within its rights to make a decision to ban greyhound racing on political ground, then legislate to do so. Crown lawyer Katherine Anderson KC raised the example where the Government had made a political decision to legislate, without consulting the affected communities, saying it was the executive's right to do so. This coalition has also faced a series of challenges at the Waitangi Tribunal, and it's unlikely these legal cases will be the last to come. Earlier this year, Newsroom revealed the Government would be reinstating a full prisoner voting ban. And last month the coalition announced it was overhauling voter registration, meaning voters would not be able to enrol or update their details in the 12 days ahead of election day. This move is expected to impact more than 100,000 people and disproportionately affect young people, Māori and Pasifika. Jailhouse lawyer Arthur Taylor, alongside the Human Rights Commission, successfully sought a declaration of inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act last time a Government removed prisoners' right to vote. This led to a process that ultimately resulted in the previous Labour-led Government giving the vote to everyone who was serving a sentence of less than three years. It would be unsurprising to see someone take essentially the same case back to court when this new prisoner voting ban comes into effect, given the court's already ruled it breaches human rights law once before. Meanwhile, Attorney-General Judith Collins told her colleagues, including the minister responsible and her associate attorney-general Paul Goldsmith, that the proposed changes to voter enrolment breach the Bill of Rights Act, saying Māori, Pasifika and Asian communities will pay the 'heaviest price' by being disenfranchised. Once the law has passed, someone could call on the court to declare inconsistencies with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act. A win in any of these cases doesn't necessitate a law change, but they will put the spotlight on the coalition's process and the weight it puts on human rights. The union's case will be filed at the High Court on August 29, alongside a protest rally held by women whose claims were cancelled.
