
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards.
The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry.
The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless.
The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990).
Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: fifty-years-of-the-equal-pay-act-1972.pdf
In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.
The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill.
New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders.
The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers.
This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand.
The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire.
This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required.
Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail.
St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet.
To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.'
Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history.
Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.
Hashtags

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


Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Sex Matters When It Comes To Human Rights
Last week [28 July] the Human Rights Commission (HRC) changed its statement at the bottom of a media release about transgender guidelines in sport. Responding to complaints about misinformation stating that 'gender identity and expression' are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act when it is NOT, the HRC responded to complainants with the following: 'We understand that some members of the public were concerned that our original media statement suggested that gender identity and expression are explicitly listed in the Human Rights Act 1993 or the legal definition of the ground of sex. 'We have heard the view that the language used may have been unclear, and we acknowledge that some people have felt that the statement did not reflect or protect their understanding of sex-based rights. 'Considering the feedback we have received, we have updated our public statement to provide greater clarity and accuracy regarding the relevant legal framework. This amendment was made to more accurately reflect the language of the Act, while still setting out the Commission's application of how gender identity and gender expression are interpreted within the scope of the prohibited ground of sex. The amended statement can be accessed on our website here.' The HRC reply continued, saying that as part of its mandate the Commission interprets the Human Rights Act in line with international human rights standards and New Zealand's obligations under those frameworks. 'It is our long-standing view that discrimination based on gender identity or gender expression falls within the prohibited ground of sex discrimination, and this has informed our guidance over several years.' The Women's Rights Party has responded, asking the HRC to clarify just which international human rights standards and obligations New Zealand has signed up to. We have yet to receive a response. We suspect the HRC is relying on the Yogyakarta Principles, which have no standing in international law and have never been adopted by the United Nations. When he was the Human Rights Commissioner, Paul Hunt signed up to these Principles, which set out rights put forward by participants at a conference in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, in 2006 (and revisited 10 years later). Why it is important to be clear about 'sex' When it comes to women's rights, sex matters. That is because, in addition to 'sex' being a prohibited ground in terms of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993, there are a number of exceptions in the Act that allow positive discrimination to protect women on the basis of sex. When the Human Rights Act was drawn up in 1993 to comply with the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), it was understood that sex meant women and men. The fact that the prohibited ground of sex was qualified by reference to pregnancy and childbirth suggests that this was the understanding of sex. In fact, unless sex is defined in terms of biological sex, the sex-based exceptions that currently protect women's single-sex spaces and women's sports are meaningless. Sexual orientation, referring to same-sex attraction or opposite sex attraction, is also meaningless if it doesn't refer to biological sex. In Australia, lesbians are not allowed to have lesbian-only events or get-togethers, including social media groups, because in 2013 the Australian Sex Discrimination Act removed the definition of sex in terms of men and women, and replaced it with 'gender'. It was on this basis that Roxanne Tickle, a man who identifies as a woman, was able to win his case against Sall Grover's app for women and girls only. The Tickle v Grover case is currently being heard this week (4-9 August) in the Australian Federal Court. Sex-based exceptions in the Human Rights Act include s27 of Exceptions in Relation to Employment Matters, which allows for different treatment based on sex or age where being of a particular sex or age is a genuine occupational qualification for the position or employment, for example, a counsellor specialising in highly personal matters such as sexual matters or the prevention of violence. Here are some more… Section 43 Exceptions in relation to access by the public to places, vehicles, and facilities S43 allows for the maintenance of separate facilities for each sex on the ground of public decency or public safety. Section 44 Provision of goods and services Suppliers of goods, facilities, or services to the public can't refuse to provide any other person with those goods, facilities, or services; or to treat any other person less favourably in connection with the provision of those goods, facilities, or services by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Section 46 Exception in relation to public decency or safety Notwithstanding s44, in s46 suppliers of good and services can provide separate facilities or services for each sex, i.e. single-sex services or spaces, are allowed on the ground of public decency or public safety. Section 47 Exception in relation to skill Where the nature of a skill varies according to whether it is exercised in relation to men or women, a person does not commit a breach of section 44 by exercising the skill in relation to one sex only, in accordance with that person's normal practice. This is the only place in the Human Rights Act where sex is defined in terms of men and women. (Note this exception specifically refers to men and women). Section 48 Exception in relation to insurance Insurance companies can offer or provide life insurance policies, or other policies of insurance, on different terms or conditions for each sex or for persons with a disability or for persons of different ages if, for example, the different treatment is based on actuarial or statistical data, upon which it is reasonable to rely, relating to life-expectancy, accidents, or sickness. (Note if "sex" included "gender identity" it would have said "all genders" not "each sex".) Section 49 Exception in relation to sport In s49 it is lawful to exclude one sex from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina, or physique of competitors is relevant. This doesn't apply to coaches, umpires or referees, sports administrators, or sporting activities for children under 12. It is also lawful to exclude someone from a competitive sporting event or activity if that person's disability is such that there would be a risk of harm to that person or to others. It is lawful to conduct competitive sporting events or activities in which only persons with a particular disability or age qualification may take part, like Masters events or Special Olympics. Section 55 Exception in relation to hostels, institutions, etc Hostels, or establishments such as a hospitals, clubs, schools, universities, religious institutions, or retirement villages, can provide accommodation only for persons of the same sex, marital status, or religious or ethical belief, or for persons with a particular disability, or for persons in a particular age group. This can include part of an establishment. Section 58 Exceptions in relation to establishments for particular groups Educational establishments for students of one sex, race, or religious belief, or for students with a particular disability, or for students in a particular age group, can under s58 refuse to admit students of a different sex, race, or religious belief, or students. There are other forms of discrimination covered by the Act, such as racial and sexual harassment, adverse treatment in employment of people affected by family violence (mostly women, of course), and superannuation schemes (mostly in relation to disability and age, though it is also lawful to provide different benefits for members of each sex). Currently the Law Commission is preparing a report to advise Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith, due out late next month, to provide advice as to whether 'gender identity and expression' and 'innate variations of sex characteristics' should be included as prohibited grounds of discrimination. Although many government agencies, local bodies and non-governmental organisations believe it to be the case, 'gender identity' is not included in the prohibited grounds of discrimination which are found in s21 of the Human Rights Act. The current prohibited grounds are: sex, which includes pregnancy and childbirth marital status religious belief ethical belief disability, which includes physical disability or impairment, physical illness, psychiatric illness, intellectual or psychological disability or impairment age political opinion employment status, e.g. being unemployed; or a beneficiary family status sexual orientation, which means a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation.


NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Ex-National Party president Peter Goodfellow on what threatens 2026 re-election
'Desley, I love you very much,' Goodfellow said, his voice catching in his throat. His final message to the party faithful was his best wishes in the 'fight to win the party vote in 2026'. Former National Party board member Peter Goodfellow (right) speaks at the party's annual conference in Christchurch alongside current party president Sylvia Wood. Photo / Adam Pearse Despite a party vote target in the mid-40s, National hadn't registered above 40% since January last year and hadn't breached 35% since April across several opinion pollsters. It received 38% in the 2023 election. Speaking to the Herald on Sunday, Goodfellow praised National's work while in Government but said the party's chief threat to re-election was the economy. 'I think people have responded really well on education with Erica [Stanford], I think Simeon [Brown] is doing a fantastic job in health, but it's the economy. 'If the economy suffers another shock then I think that the public can get tired of it and want change. 'I'm not seeing that at the moment, but there's a potential for that to happen if there were another series of shocks or a trade war.' Just hours before Goodfellow's farewell, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon confirmed Trade Minister Todd McClay would shortly travel to the United States to discuss President Donald Trump's announcement of 15% tariffs on New Zealand goods, an action Luxon described as 'blunt'. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon (front) speaks to media in Christchurch alongside Conservation Minister Tama Potaka (left) and Tourism Minister Louise Upston at the National conference. Photo / Adam Pearse The news was an unwelcome development for the Government, given the potential for further pain for exporters, which would slow any economic recovery. Recent polls affirmed the cost of living as the primary issue for voters, with the latest Ipsos Issues Monitor finding people trusted Labour more than National to lower prices. Goodfellow acknowledged New Zealanders were 'tired' of not seeing meaningful cost-of-living relief. 'My understanding is there'll continue to be relief for that middle New Zealand, but it's almost like they're saying it's not enough, it's almost never going to be enough.' A self-professed early adopter of the 'survive til 25' slogan used in 2024, Goodfellow argued economic growth hadn't been overestimated, but Trump's approach to trade had eroded confidence. 'The issue is, how do you get a bit of momentum and that confidence again?' Former Prime Minister Sir John Key (right) and Peter Goodfellow speak after the latter's selection as party president in 2009. Photo / NZPA Goodfellow stepped down as National president in 2022, but had previously voiced his original intention to resign in 2016. 'John Key and I did discuss at the beginning that we shouldn't leave together,' he said. 'I just thought, 'Well, I don't want to do this role for a huge, long time', but then we lost the election and then we had a period of some stability and coming into the 2020 election, the board wanted me to continue on as the president. 'Then we had a couple of leadership changes which just again meant they wanted that stability and continuity at the party and at the board level and I think that actually worked out pretty well.' Amid a disastrous result in the 2020 election, Goodfellow faced pressure over the party's candidate selection processes when the actions of several standing in 2020 hurt National's chances. He also endured a challenge for the party presidency from former Speaker of the House Sir David Carter, who in 2021 said he had 'zero confidence' in Goodfellow's ability to right the ship. Goodfellow described that period as a 'very unstable time for the party'. 'I never thought I would ever develop such a thick hide,' he said. 'There's a lot of criticism in the world and in politics, but not all of it is justified. 'I knew I was supported by the board and the decisions that we were making and that's why ultimately [Carter's] challenge didn't succeed.' However, Goodfellow acknowledged changes to the party's vetting proved some of the criticism was warranted. 'The vetting was very casual 20 years ago, maybe because people knew who the candidates were, but suddenly, more recently, we have people not known to the party coming in from the outside and we clearly did what we thought was good vetting, but there are some instances of behaviour that you can't pick up, no matter how good you're vetting. 'Many [candidates] are suitable ... but they don't necessarily understand what's going to be involved and what's going to be required. 'The challenge then is, are they telling you everything that's going on and increasingly, we have to be more diligent to make sure that our members are respected by not having candidates put up in front of them that aren't suitable.' Asked to describe his lasting legacy with National, Goodfellow pointed to the various special interest groups within the party and his mission to make the party more inclusive. Those groups included the party's younger and older members' wings, as well as collectives of members from Chinese, Indian, Filipino, rural, Māori and Pasifika communities. 'I know that there was no such inclusion before it, it was very much a traditional-looking party,' Goodfellow said. 'Within the party, it's good for us to have groups that represent that culture, but also share the values and the philosophy of the National Party and want to be engaged in it.' Adam Pearse is the Deputy Political Editor and part of the NZ Herald's Press Gallery team based at Parliament in Wellington. He has worked for NZME since 2018, reporting for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei and the Herald in Auckland.


Scoop
8 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Launches Largest Local Government Campaign In New Zealand
ACT Local has today unveiled its full slate of candidates for the 2025 local body elections: 46 practical, community-minded New Zealanders standing across 25 councils. With 37 ward and constituency level candidates, it's the largest local government campaign mounted by a political party in New Zealand, including Labour and the Greens who have stood council candidates for many years. ACT Local is standing a further 9 candidates for Auckland Local Board positions. 'These are New Zealanders who've had enough of being ignored by their councils,' says ACT Leader David Seymour. 'They're stepping up to deliver real change and lower rates. 'ACT's candidates come from all walks of life; we have business owners, tradies, healthcare workers, farmers, and many professionals. What unites them is a belief in sensible spending, equal rights, and a back-to-basics approach. They're ready to bring real-world experience and common sense to the council table. 'Many have built successful careers, but more importantly, they're local residents and ratepayers – people who've built homes, raised families, and dealt firsthand with council bureaucracy. They know what it's like to stretch a budget and deal with the challenges people face locally. 'Now they're stepping forward to bring practical solutions and a laser focus on core services like roads, water, and rubbish. 'In central government, ACT is cutting waste, defending equal rights, and taking pressure off households. Our councillors will do the same: vote against wasteful spending, stand up for democratic principles, and focus on essential services without driving up rates. 'Kiwis voted for real change in 2023, but our councils missed the memo. 'While ratepayers face eye-watering rate hikes, councils are blowing money on vanity projects, pushing ideological agendas like co-governance, and wasting time grandstanding about global politics – all while ignoring the basics. 'Every local election, voters get the little booklet with their ballot paper and tick whoever they think will do the best job. But too often, you don't know what you are going to get. Candidates promise one thing and then do another. With ACT Local candidates, you'll know exactly where they stand. 'So if there's an ACT Local candidate in your area and you want real change from your council, I hope you will give them your support.' Candidate profiles can be found here. A full list of our candidates is below: Northland Far North District Council Davina Smolders – Bay of Islands–Whangaroa Ward Whangārei District Council Matthew Yovich – Bream Bay Ward Kaipara District Council Nima Maleiki – Kaiwaka–Mangawhai Ward Roger Billington – Otamatea Ward Auckland Council & Local Boards Albany Ward and Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Hibiscus Coast Subdivision) Samuel Mills North Shore Ward and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Helena Roza Franklin Ward and Franklin Local Board (Wairoa Subdivision) Dene Green Howick Ward and Howick Local Board (Botany Subdivision) Ali Dahche Manukau Ward and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (Ōtara Subdivision) Henrietta Devoe Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Hibiscus Coast Subdivision) Yang Qu Kaipātiki Local Board Martin Lundqvist Henderson-Massey Local Board Ben Cox Ōrākei Local Board Martin Mahler Amanda Lockyer Robert Meredith Howick Local Board (Pakuranga Subdivision) Pat Arroyo Howick Local Board (Howick Subdivision) William Goldberg Papakura Local Board Prasad Gawande Central & Lower North Island Waikato District Council Peter Mayall – Tamahere–Woodlands Ward Hauraki District Council Michelle Magnus – Paeroa Ward Andrew Pickford – Plains Ward Waipa District Council Stuart Hylton – Cambridge Ward Hamilton City Council Nidhita Gosai – West Ward Preet Dhaliwal – East Ward New Plymouth District Council Damon Fox – Kaitake–Ngāmotu Ward Napier City Council Iain Bradley – Ahuriri Ward Manawatū District Council Jerry Pickford – Feilding Ward Aaron McLeod – Feilding Ward Palmerston North City Council Glen Williams – General Ward Porirua City Council Phill Houlihan – Pāuatahanui Ward Greater Wellington Regional Council Nigel Elder – Lower Hutt Constituency Alice Claire Hurdle – Wellington Constituency Wellington City Council Ray Bowden – Onslow–Western Ward Mark Flynn – Northern Ward Luke Kuggeleijn – Eastern Ward South Island Candidates Tasman District Council David Ross – Motueka Ward Daniel Shirley – Richmond Ward Marlborough District Council Malcolm Taylor – Marlborough Sounds Ward John Hyndman – Blenheim Ward Hurunui District Council Tom Spooner – South Ward Waimakariri District Council Nathan Atkins – Kaiapoi–Woodend Ward Selwyn District Council Chris Till – Rolleston Ward Timaru District Council John Bolt – Timaru Ward Environment Canterbury Regional Council Toni Severin – South Canterbury Constituency Otago Regional Council Robbie Byars – Molyneux Constituency Dunedin City Council Anthony Kenny – Council At-large Ward