
Lack Of Debate Fans Pay Equity Fury
The opposition, unions and media have all been accused of scaremongering on the pay equity legislation. But the issue's been clouded by the government's actions, which left no time for debate.
Dumping 33 pay equity claims and telling underpaid workers to start again was always going to cause fury from those who stood to benefit from the claims - mostly women.
But the government's shock and awe approach to changing the legislation has fanned the flames of anger.
In a whirlwind 48 hours the law changed - no select committee, public meetings, opportunities for submissions or the usual processes laws go through.
It is far from the first time a government has used urgency - but this was fast even by usual urgent standards.
The Prime Minister has suggested the opposition, unions and the media have all been scaremongering on the issue.
But there has been no time for debate on it, which Newsroom senior political reporter Marc Daalder said did not give people time to discuss its merits.
"I don't think anyone was looking at this as an area for major reform, certainly not immediate reform," he said.
"It's something that the government hadn't really spent very much time talking about. We know that the [workplace relationships] minister, Brooke van Velden, has been doing a lot of workplace reform and a lot of that has been forecast in the coalition agreements and in public statements that she's made. And she now says this pay equity issue is something that right when she got the job, at the very start in late 2023, she told the Prime Minister she was interested in working on it.
"But it's not something the rest of us, or the public, had really known was on their radar."
The changes to the Equal Pay Amendment Act made last week tighten up parameters for claims, introduce more restrictions and give employers more ways to ignore them.
Van Velden said in her announcement that all ministers have been asked to save money, and that is what the move would do. They are substantial savings - billions - and Act leader David Seymour said van Velden had saved the Budget. National has played that aspect down, but it will get a lot of liability off the government books.
That has paved the way for commentary that the savings have been made off the backs of women and made it harder for them to access economic justice.
No one has lost any money - wages are not being slashed. But the fairness that many women were hoping for has just become that much further away.
Daalder says Act and National MPs have now expressed concerns that many of the claims now cancelled were "basically bogus".
"Nicola Willis called it [a Trojan horse for] a billion dollar grievance industry by the unions... that yes there are some situations where particular lines of work that are dominated by women have been systemically undervalued due to sexism and misogyny, as compared to types of work dominated by men that require similar skills, qualifications, and levels of work and so forth.
"But that many of the claims that were currently being considered were not that. That they represented pay differentials for reasons other than sexism and misogyny. That's the heart of the argument from the government now ... the system was too loose, it was letting people make disingenuous comparisons between professions, and that there are professions that are paid less well not because they are dominated by women but for other reasons."
Also on The Detail on Thursday, Helen Roberts, who is a professor of finance at the University of Otago, talks about the differences between equal pay, pay equity and the gender gap.
She said we need to up our game on data gathering from employers so the situation is more transparent - and she uses the Australian example, the statutory body WGEA (Workplace Gender Equality Agency) as an example of what could be done here.
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Launches Petition To Dump Te Mana o te Wai
Press Release – ACT New Zealand Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested, says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron. ACT is at Fieldays this week, garnering farmers' support for the campaign to scrap the vague, spiritual concept of Te Mana o te Wai and allow regional councils to set their own freshwater standards by scrapping national bottom lines. The party has launched a petition at and is collecting signatures on the ground. 'All Te Mana o te Wai achieves is to drive up costs on users and add uncertainty and ambiguity to consenting. ACT believes the Government should scrap Te Mana o te Wai and national bottom lines, allowing regional councils to set their own standards,' says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron. 'The vague concept of 'Te Mana o te Wai' replaces scientific benchmarks with a subjective idea of the mana of the water that leads to co-governance and unequal treatment based on who someone's ancestors were. 'Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested. 'Kiwi farmers are the best in the world. They're forecast to return $59.9 billion in export revenue and make up 10% of GDP. We simply can't afford to burden them with spiritual malarky dreamed up in Wellington. 'It means iwi have a right of veto over how water is used. The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management. Consenting is now subject to consideration of mauri, or the 'life-force' of water. 'It has led to water users making large one-off and on-going payments for 'cultural monitoring' services which do nothing for the environment but add costs to consumer and business power bills. 'Is requiring farmers to comply with a spiritual concept going to make them farm better? Of course not. It means they'll have to employ a cultural consultant and waste time and money that could instead be spent improving their farming practices. That's what happens when we regulate water quality based on superstition not science. 'Farmers just want to grow food and look after their land, incorporating spiritual concepts isn't necessary for them to do that. 'ACT is dedicated to real change. We cannot continue with a policy that burdens our farmers unnecessarily. We campaigned on a complete overhaul of the NPS-FM to remove subjective concepts and ensure that our freshwater management is scientifically sound and adapted to the needs of local communities. 'New Zealanders never voted for co-governance. Yet under Te Mana o te Wai, it's being imposed on every dam, drain, and ditch. We need to bring common sense back and let farmers farm.'


Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Launches Petition To Dump Te Mana o te Wai
Press Release – ACT New Zealand Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested, says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron. ACT is at Fieldays this week, garnering farmers' support for the campaign to scrap the vague, spiritual concept of Te Mana o te Wai and allow regional councils to set their own freshwater standards by scrapping national bottom lines. The party has launched a petition at and is collecting signatures on the ground. 'All Te Mana o te Wai achieves is to drive up costs on users and add uncertainty and ambiguity to consenting. ACT believes the Government should scrap Te Mana o te Wai and national bottom lines, allowing regional councils to set their own standards,' says ACT Agriculture spokesperson Mark Cameron. 'The vague concept of 'Te Mana o te Wai' replaces scientific benchmarks with a subjective idea of the mana of the water that leads to co-governance and unequal treatment based on who someone's ancestors were. 'Instead of clear metrics like nitrate levels or sedimentation rates, councils are being asked to assess spiritual values that cannot be measured or contested. 'Kiwi farmers are the best in the world. They're forecast to return $59.9 billion in export revenue and make up 10% of GDP. We simply can't afford to burden them with spiritual malarky dreamed up in Wellington. 'It means iwi have a right of veto over how water is used. The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management 2020 requires Te Mana o te Wai to apply to the consenting of all projects involving freshwater management. Consenting is now subject to consideration of mauri, or the 'life-force' of water. 'It has led to water users making large one-off and on-going payments for 'cultural monitoring' services which do nothing for the environment but add costs to consumer and business power bills. 'Is requiring farmers to comply with a spiritual concept going to make them farm better? Of course not. It means they'll have to employ a cultural consultant and waste time and money that could instead be spent improving their farming practices. That's what happens when we regulate water quality based on superstition not science. 'Farmers just want to grow food and look after their land, incorporating spiritual concepts isn't necessary for them to do that. 'ACT is dedicated to real change. We cannot continue with a policy that burdens our farmers unnecessarily. We campaigned on a complete overhaul of the NPS-FM to remove subjective concepts and ensure that our freshwater management is scientifically sound and adapted to the needs of local communities. 'New Zealanders never voted for co-governance. Yet under Te Mana o te Wai, it's being imposed on every dam, drain, and ditch. We need to bring common sense back and let farmers farm.'


Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
New Poll: Labour Becomes Largest Party, Economy Top Concern
Bad news for National in the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll as Labour would now be the largest party in Parliament, gaining three seats to 44. The Coalition would still just about cling on to power on these numbers. The poll, conducted between 07 and 09 June shows National drop 1.1 points on last month to 33.5 percent, while Labour are up 1.6 points to 34.8 percent. ACT is down 0.4 points to 9.1 percent, whilst the Greens are down 0.9 points to 8.2 percent. New Zealand First also drops 1.3 points to 6.1 percent, while Te Pāti Māori is down 0.6 points to 3.3 percent. Headline results and more information about the methodology can be found on the Taxpayers' Union's website at For the minor parties, TOP is on 1.8 percent (+1.3 point), Outdoors and Freedom is on 1.1 percent (+0.7 points), New Conservatives are on 0.7 percent (+0.7 points) and Vision NZ on 0.6 percent (+0.2 points). This month's results are compared to the last Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll conducted in May 2025, available here at The combined projected seats for the Centre-Right of 62 is down 1 seat from last month. The combined seats for the Centre-Left is up 2 seats to 60. On these numbers, the Centre-Right bloc could still form a Government. National remains on 42 seats again this month, whilst Labour is up 3 seats to 44. ACT is unchanged on 12 seats, whilst the Greens are down 1 seat to 10. New Zealand First drops 1 seat to 8 seats, while Te Pāti Māori remains on 6. For the first time since October 2024, Cost of Living has been replaced as voters' top issue. The Economy more generally is the most important issue to voters at 20.2 percent (+3.7 points), followed by the Cost of Living at 18.1 percent (-8.3 points), Health at 11.9 percent (-5.0 points) and Employment at 5.8 percent. Commenting on the results, Taxpayers' Union Spokesman James Ross said: "Labour taking the lead and growing concern over the economy should be a worrying sign for the Government in the first Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll since the Budget. Voters are losing faith in the managed decline on offer." "With inflation finally under heel, cost of living has slipped off the top spot for the first time in over three years. But lower interest rates don't make a sound economy on their own." "The so-called Growth Budget's only pro-growth policy offered a 1 percent boost to GDP over 20 years, spiralling debt and no credible pathway back to surplus." "Growth wins votes, stagnation doesn't."