What Officials Said About Pay Equity Changes
Treasury documents show the pay equity reset was key to meeting the coalition's cost-cutting goals., Political Reporter
The minister who ushered through the pay equity changes said any limitations on workers' rights were justified in order to reduce the risks to employers.
A document dump from the Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) showed the processes the government went through to change the pay equity framework, and then return contingency funding to the Budget allowances.
Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, who introduced the legislation, acknowledged the changes would likely be contentious, but were necessary to meet the government's policy objectives of keeping a pay equity system, while changing the framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation.
The government worked on the changes in secret, before announcing the amendment bill in May and passing it under urgency.
At the Budget, Finance Minister Nicola Willis revealed the changes had saved $12.8 billion over the forecast period.
'This is justified' – Brooke van Velden
The short timeframe to get the bill passed before the Budget meant there had been 'limited testing and analysis' of the policy proposals, and the retrospective provisions in the bill were 'inconsistent' with general principles.
MBIE acknowledged the transitional provisions would likely be 'contentious' but without them it was unlikely the amendments would 'meet the policy objective of ensuring the regime achieves pay equity, whilst better managing claims, and ensuring costs are related to sex-based differences in remuneration.'
The legal risks remained redacted, and the bill had no Regulatory Impact Statement.
The process was also kept secret to prevent a surge of claims being lodged and potentially determined under the existing Employment Relations Act.
The acting Attorney-General, Paul Goldsmith's consideration of the bill concluded that while it imposed limits on the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to justice, and freedom of expression, it was still consistent with the Bill of Rights Act.
The paper van Velden took to Cabinet for approval, included in MBIE's document dump, shows she considered any limitations on the rights to be justified.
'I consider that this is justified to meet the policy intent of allowing employers to better manage their operations, reducing potential risks to an employer's financial viability, which may lead to a reduction in employment or the quality or quantity of services provided,' van Velden wrote.
Finding the contingencies
In December 2023, shortly after assuming the government benches, the finance minister requested more information on how the pay equity forecasts worked and whether there were any upcoming large claims.
In February 2024, the Treasury reported back, saying the approach brought in by the previous government had contributed to higher cost outcomes, as it disincentivised agencies and funded sector employers from taking a lower-cost bargaining approach.
'While the current Pay Equity process does require agencies to seek a bargaining contingency prior to the bargaining phase, this occurs late in the process, and many of the potential parameters for settlement are already largely agreed between the parties,' officials said.
'The absence of financial incentives during the pre-bargaining phase may have contributed to agencies adopting approaches which exceed the minimum requirements of the Equal Pay Act, for example, agreeing to higher paid comparators when lower paid ones would be appropriate.'
It also meant the Cabinet had 'poor visibility' of the costs, until parties were at or near settlement.
Treasury said pay equity costs were managed outside of Budget allowances, and there was merit in exploring an approach that brought some or all of the costs back within Budget allowances.
By April 2024, Cabinet had agreed to a reset, bringing pay equity funding into two centralised tagged contingencies: one for the funded sector, the other for the public sector.
This still allowed the government to meet its legal obligations as an employer, but was deemed to support the coalition's fiscal strategy.
However, by the end of 2024, the government was looking to disestablish the funded sector contingency, identifying it as a significant spending commitment.
It expected service providers to manage their own claims, with any cost pressures they created managed like any other cost pressure: through the Budget process.
How the money was found
Nicola Willis chose to close the funded sector contingency and return the funding to the Budget 2025 allowance and capital allowance.
This saved $9.6b over the forecast period.
For the public sector contingency, Treasury recommended it be retained, but at a reduced level.
'On balance, we consider retaining the contingency at [redacted] for residual costs to protect future allowances to be preferable given the legal obligations on the Crown as an employer under the new Act and Treasury's judgment that we can quantify the impacts with more than 50 percent confidence,' Treasury wrote.
The government adopted this approach, with the tagged public sector contingency reduced by $3.2b over the forecast period.
In total, the changes returned around $12.8b to the Budget 2025 operating and capital allowances.
Closing or reducing the contingencies without some certainty from Cabinet on policy change, however, was seen to potentially 'strain the credibility' of future Budget allowances.
And so, the future approach to pay equity was developed.
Van Velden's legislation discontinued 33 claims and increased the threshold for what qualified as work that was 'predominantly performed by female employees.'
All review clauses under settled claims became unenforceable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
19 hours ago
- NZ Herald
KiwiSaver tips for self-employed: How to maximise retirement savings
Many in that situation opt to only contribute the amount required to get the maximum Government tax credit (and some don't even do that). But in this year's Budget that tax credit was halved, meaning you'll get a maximum of $260.72 from the Government provided you contribute at least $1042.86/year (and earn under $180,000). While that further waters down the appeal for the self-employed – in fairness it's still a 25% return and even before that change if that was all you were saving for retirement, you'd likely fall short of what you need. A report from the Retirement Commission last year suggested the Government increase its contribution for those who don't benefit from employer-matching – but I wouldn't hold your breath, especially when time is of the essence. So, if you're self-employed, what should you be doing with your KiwiSaver to ensure you're on track for retirement? Start with some number crunching I know, I know, 'figure out how much you'll need' sounds like tired advice. But it can be difficult to prioritise money going anywhere except into your bank account to fund your current existence unless you have a clear idea of why directing it elsewhere is essential. That starts with figuring out how much you might need in retirement and what you're currently on track to have. Websites like Sorted have brilliant calculators that can help you establish how much you'd have each week in retirement based on your current KiwiSaver settings – a number that might provide a wake-up call. Consider the best strategy for contributing One of the biggest challenges when you're self-employed is managing income fluctuations. Some months are killer, some are anaemic – and it's tricky to manage even just your regular fixed costs amid those ups and downs, let alone KiwiSaver. It's therefore worth considering how to make it work for your situation – to ensure it happens. For example, you could contribute a percentage of every invoice, so when times are lean less goes in, and vice versa. You could align payments based on the seasonality of your income or contribute a percentage of your profits when you do your GST (if GST registered) to ensure they happen. You could do a lump sum before the annual KiwiSaver balance date of June 30, but often big dollops of money are harder to find than smaller, regular amounts. Whichever method you choose, double check before June 30 that – at the absolute minimum – you'll qualify for the maximum Government tax credit. Review your fund type I'm beating a familiar drum here, I know – but I still come across people in their 40s who have perplexingly chosen 'conservative' funds, when they have decades before they can access their KiwiSaver, and are potentially missing out on significant returns. Don't make the same mistake. Consider a company structure I'll preface this point by saying: get good accounting advice, as there are many things to consider here aside from just your KiwiSaver. But to get you thinking – if you're operating as a sole trader, you and the business are one and the same, whereas if you form a company, the business is a separate legal entity. If you only take drawings from that company, as many business owners do, anything you put into KiwiSaver will be considered a drawing and taxed accordingly. However, if you pay yourself a PAYE salary as an employee of your company, the company contributes the 'employer' side of your KiwiSaver contributions, which becomes a tax-deductible business expense (noting here that employers pay an Employment Superannuation Contribution Tax based on the employee's tax rate, reducing the amount that goes into the employee's account). This isn't about avoiding tax but using legitimate structures to ensure you utilise a system that is currently not designed well for anyone who isn't an employee. But I repeat – take professional advice. Can you sell your business? KiwiSaver may not make up the entirety of your retirement nest egg even if you are an employee, benefiting from employer contributions, but the case for diversification goes double for those in business and contributing less – and your business could be one of those irons on the fire. For many small business owners, however, you are the business – and as soon as you're not working in it, it ceases to make money or be worth anything. But some could grow their business into something that has a life beyond their working years, and therefore potentially have some realisable value. I'm peppering in 'some' 'could' and 'potentially' because it isn't necessarily easy. It involves succession planning, investing in business assets, systems, IP, keeping personal costs separate, maximising profit, perhaps vendor financing. In short, it's not a small task, but if you have enough time and energy, there's potential. Just don't make it your only plan – business cycles can disrupt even the best-laid plans – which is why including KiwiSaver in your retirement planning mix is still worth considering.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
What Officials Said About Pay Equity Changes
The minister who ushered through the pay equity changes said any limitations on workers' rights were justified in order to reduce the risks to employers. A document dump from the Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) showed the processes the government went through to change the pay equity framework, and then return contingency funding to the Budget allowances. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, who introduced the legislation, acknowledged the changes would likely be contentious, but were necessary to meet the government's policy objectives of keeping a pay equity system, while changing the framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government worked on the changes in secret, before announcing the amendment bill in May and passing it under urgency. At the Budget, Finance Minister Nicola Willis revealed the changes had saved $12.8 billion over the forecast period. 'This is justified' - Brooke van Velden The short timeframe to get the bill passed before the Budget meant there had been "limited testing and analysis" of the policy proposals, and the retrospective provisions in the bill were "inconsistent" with general principles. MBIE acknowledged the transitional provisions would likely be "contentious" but without them it was unlikely the amendments would "meet the policy objective of ensuring the regime achieves pay equity, whilst better managing claims, and ensuring costs are related to sex-based differences in remuneration." The legal risks remained redacted, and the bill had no Regulatory Impact Statement. The process was also kept secret to prevent a surge of claims being lodged and potentially determined under the existing Employment Relations Act. The acting Attorney-General, Paul Goldsmith's consideration of the bill concluded that while it imposed limits on the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to justice, and freedom of expression, it was still consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The paper van Velden took to Cabinet for approval, included in MBIE's document dump, shows she considered any limitations on the rights to be justified. "I consider that this is justified to meet the policy intent of allowing employers to better manage their operations, reducing potential risks to an employer's financial viability, which may lead to a reduction in employment or the quality or quantity of services provided," van Velden wrote. Finding the contingencies In December 2023, shortly after assuming the government benches, the finance minister requested more information on how the pay equity forecasts worked and whether there were any upcoming large claims. In February 2024, the Treasury reported back, saying the approach brought in by the previous government had contributed to higher cost outcomes, as it disincentivised agencies and funded sector employers from taking a lower-cost bargaining approach. "While the current Pay Equity process does require agencies to seek a bargaining contingency prior to the bargaining phase, this occurs late in the process, and many of the potential parameters for settlement are already largely agreed between the parties," officials said. "The absence of financial incentives during the pre-bargaining phase may have contributed to agencies adopting approaches which exceed the minimum requirements of the Equal Pay Act, for example, agreeing to higher paid comparators when lower paid ones would be appropriate." It also meant the Cabinet had "poor visibility" of the costs, until parties were at or near settlement. Treasury said pay equity costs were managed outside of Budget allowances, and there was merit in exploring an approach that brought some or all of the costs back within Budget allowances. By April 2024, Cabinet had agreed to a reset, bringing pay equity funding into two centralised tagged contingencies: one for the funded sector, the other for the public sector. This still allowed the government to meet its legal obligations as an employer, but was deemed to support the coalition's fiscal strategy. However, by the end of 2024, the government was looking to disestablish the funded sector contingency, identifying it as a significant spending commitment. It expected service providers to manage their own claims, with any cost pressures they created managed like any other cost pressure: through the Budget process. How the money was found Nicola Willis chose to close the funded sector contingency and return the funding to the Budget 2025 allowance and capital allowance. This saved $9.6b over the forecast period. For the public sector contingency, Treasury recommended it be retained, but at a reduced level. "On balance, we consider retaining the contingency at [redacted] for residual costs to protect future allowances to be preferable given the legal obligations on the Crown as an employer under the new Act and Treasury's judgment that we can quantify the impacts with more than 50 percent confidence," Treasury wrote. The government adopted this approach, with the tagged public sector contingency reduced by $3.2b over the forecast period. In total, the changes returned around $12.8b to the Budget 2025 operating and capital allowances. Closing or reducing the contingencies without some certainty from Cabinet on policy change, however, was seen to potentially "strain the credibility" of future Budget allowances. And so, the future approach to pay equity was developed. Van Velden's legislation discontinued 33 claims and increased the threshold for what qualified as work that was "predominantly performed by female employees." All review clauses under settled claims became unenforceable.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The group's chair, Gail Duncan, said: 'The Social Justice Group have sent in their submission to the Peoples Select Committee on Pay Equity. This Select Committee was the brainchild of Marilyn Waring and we were very grateful to have the opportunity to submit ' 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: 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.
