What have the women of the coalition said about pay equity?
As the government pushed through sweeping changes to New Zealand's pay equity regime that will extinguish existing claims and make the criteria for bringing new ones much stricter, Nicola Willis faced media, flanked by three other female National MPs. The finance minister denied the move was to plug a gap in the forthcoming budget – contradicting her Act Party coalition partners. Act leader David Seymour had said his deputy Brooke van Velden, who is in charge of the amendments as workplace relations minister, 'has saved the taxpayer billions. She's saved the budget for the government.' Willis, meanwhile, said the changes were about 'ensuring we are clear, transparent, and fair to ensure that where those claims are made they relate to gender-based discrimination and that other issues to do with pay and working conditions are raised during the normal employment relations process'.
The amendments, which are likely to be passed today under urgency, will undo previous amendments made to the Equal Pay Act by the Labour government in 2020, with the support of all parties in parliament. At the time, National MPs were highly critical of the delays in passing the legislation – Labour had ditched a similar bill introduced by National in 2017 and then, in 2018, failed to support a member's bill in the name of National MP Denise Lee, before introducing the Equal Pay Amendment Bill in October 2018.
A trawl through Hansard shows what some of the current coalition MPs have said about pay equity over the years.
Louise Upston (National), August 3, 2017, joint working group on pay equity principles recommendations and legislation
'The reality is we have a piece of legislation that enables both equal pay and pay equity, and, as the member has just said, over 55,000 New Zealand women have benefited exactly from our government's work on pay equity.'
Judith Collins (National), November 8, 2017, reinstatement of business in first sitting of new parliament
'Why is it that New Zealand women are now going to be asked to wait for years more for the new legislation to come into the House? It's taken two years of intensive negotiations and intensive consultation right across New Zealand, right across business, right across employers, and with the unions as well – it's taken two years. And what we're seeing today is that this new Labour-led government is happy to say to New Zealand women, 'Go take another two years, honey. Go take another two years because you're not going to be man enough to stand up for yourself.'
Upston, April 4, 2018, first reading of Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill, a member's bill in the name of National's Denise Lee
'I don't think there would be any member of parliament in this House that wants to see further delays in real solutions and real pay increases for real New Zealand women. Unfortunately, by members opposite not supporting this legislation to go forward to the select committee, that's exactly what's happening.'
Parmjeet Parmar (then National, now Act), October 16, 2018, first reading of the Labour-led government's Equal Pay Amendment Bill
'The whole world is actually working towards this issue that is to reduce the gender pay gap, and National has shown they are committed.'
Upston, October 16, 2018, first reading of Equal Pay Amendment Bill
'I'm very pleased to stand and speak in this first reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill and say that the National Party will be supporting this legislation in the first reading and on its way to select committee.'
Willis, June 24, 2020, second reading of Equal Pay Amendment Bill
'National supports the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. We support it for the very good reason that we think that gender should not be the basis for determining the pay that someone gets and that men and women deserve not only equal pay for doing the same work but equity in the payment for the work that they do based on the value of that work rather than the gender of the people doing it. This is what this bill sets out to achieve and it establishes mechanisms which allow people to make claims where pay equity and equal pay principles are not upheld.
'So when my two daughters grow up, how will we know whether this bill has actually been successful? Well, we know that this bill's been successful when we actually see that these sorts of claims are no longer necessary, because we've established a framework in which people don't want to have to be doing compensation and that they pay people fairly to begin with. But we will also see that that gap between the pay of men and women, which currently sits at about 9.3%, is reducing in real time.'
Willis, July 22, 2020, third reading of Equal Pay Amendment Bill
'I'm proud to stand in this House tonight and say that National will support this final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. And I'm proud that our party has contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House. We support the simple concept that people should be paid the same for the same work, regardless of their gender, and we support the equally important concept that, if someone has been doing work and there are reasonable grounds to believe that that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and has been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim.
'I want to put on the record that we are hopeful this process works as well as possible for all parties to it. We want to see women being able to progress their claims for pay equity as easily as possible, and we want to see employers being engaged in good faith in that process to address claims.
'This is an important moment. Equal pay matters. We still have an outstanding gender pay gap in this country. We all, I believe, want to live in a country and a world in which men and women have equal opportunities, are equally rewarded for their work, and are able to progress and fulfil their own potential to the maximum extent possible. This legislation provides a further step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.'
Erica Stanford, July 22, 2020, third reading of Equal Pay Amendment Bill
'The dreams I have for my daughter and my grandchildren – one day, when I have them, hopefully – is that they will grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts. This bill sets out the framework that we will achieve that outcome.'
Willis, May 27, 2024, having disestablished the pay equity taskforce that the previous National government set up in 2015
'The government remains committed to upholding its obligations under the Equal Pay Act and continues to have funds set aside, including in tagged contingencies for settlements in both the public and funded sectors.'
Upston, May 6, 2025, first reading of Equal Pay Amendment Bill 2025
'This is where things went astray with the 2020 legislation, because, all of a sudden, the government in power wanted to wrap a whole bunch of other issues into a piece of legislation that removed it from its core purpose, which was about pay equity.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Less building consents being given out
housing politics about 1 hour ago Residential building consents are still heading south with 11 out of 16 regions around the country rubber stamping fewer builds compared to last year. Labour has accused the government of effectively hammering a nail in the coffin of building industry by slashing the number of state houses Kainga Ora is building, contributing to a "huge slow down in construction". The Building Minister has said their maths is all wrong. Building industry analyst Mike Blackburn spoke to Lisa Owen.
1News
2 hours ago
- 1News
Swarbrick kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick has again been kicked out of Parliament after refusing to apologise for a comment she made yesterday in the House. Yesterday, Swarbrick was kicked out of Parliament during an urgent debate on recognising Palestine as a state. The debate was called after Foreign Minister Winston Peters said the Government was weighing up its position on the issue. In recent times, the UK, Canada, France and Australia have announced plans to recognise Palestine as a state. During the debate on Tuesday, Swarbrick said MPs could "grow a spine" and support her bill which would impose sanctions on Israel. ADVERTISEMENT Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick, left, and Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee. (Source: 1News/Getty) In response, Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee said: "That is completely unacceptable to make that statement. Withdraw it and apologise." When she refused, Brownlee said she would have to leave for the rest of the week and removed her from the House. However, Brownlee later signalled he would again give Swarbrick the opportunity to apologise in the House today, where she then could avoid being barred. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including the legal fight to get a New Zealand woman and her child out of US immigration detention, sliding house prices, and Taylor Swift's big reveal. (Source: 1News) Returning to the House today, Swarbrick refused to withdraw and apologise, and at first, didn't leave when asked. Brownlee then called a vote to name her, which the majority of MPs supported. Swarbrick then removed herself from the House. ADVERTISEMENT Peters: 'Wasn't offensive enough to be booted' New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. (Source: 1News) Earlier, when heading into the House, NZ First leader Winston Peters spoke out against Swarbrick's removal. "I didn't agree with one thing she said, but it wasn't offensive enough to be booted out," he said. "If you can have John Key say 'get some guts', or accept the C-word — which was outrageous — then how can you be offensive in that context? "Parliament is a robust theatre for debate. People have serious emotional concerns about what they believe in, and to take away the essence... about the emotional concern you are talking about, is to neuter the place, and that's bad for New Zealand's democracy." Netanyahu 'lost the plot' – Luxon ADVERTISEMENT Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. (Source: 1News) On his way into the House, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued fresh criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for his role in the war in Gaza. 'I think what's happening in Gaza is utterly appalling. I think Netanyahu has gone way too far, I think he has lost the plot." Luxon said overnight attacks on Gaza City were "utterly unacceptable". 'He is not listening to the international community, and that is unacceptable.' Labour leader Chris Hipkins was today asked whether he would agree with Luxon's comment on Netanyahu. "Probably, yes, actually, that's probably quite an astute observation." Hipkins said he took a moment to pause before answering, looking surprised, because of the "strength of the language". ADVERTISEMENT 'Uncharted territory' – Swarbrick Swarbrick speaking to reporters today. (Source: 1News) After leaving the House, Swarbrick said Brownlee had "been explicit about the fact he was the member who took personal offence" to her comment yesterday. "We are in uncharted territory. As far as I am aware, there is no situation where a Speaker has asked for somebody to withdraw and apologise, that person has refused to apologise, then been ordered to leave the House, i.e. being punished, the person has complied, and then the Speaker has sought to reopen the issue the very next day. "It would appear that now we are in a position where things are being completely made up." When asked about Luxon's comments on Netanyahu, Swarbrick said: "The Government has yet to put any meaningful substance behind their words." She said the very least the Government could do was "apply the exact same approach they did to Russia" – again referencing her bill to apply sanctions to Israel.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Decoding non-answers on Palestine
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in the House. File photo. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith Analysis - Parliament held an urgent debate on Tuesday on whether to recognise Palestine as a state. Many of the speeches were fiery and the Hansard record is worth reading. Strong party positions were outlined by Simon Court (ACT), Vanushi Walters and others (Labour), Chlöe Swarbrick (Green) and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (Te Pāti Māori). New Zealand First's only speaker, Winston Peters, spoke aggressively, though more as minister of foreign affairs than party leader. The only party that made no speeches at all was National. This was unusual for an urgent debate. The eight calls in an urgent debate are not proportionally allocated, but National MPs usually speak regardless of whether it is a National minister who initially responds. If nothing else, this uses up available Opposition speech time. It may be that the National Party has not managed an internal consensus on Palestine and was not prepared to reveal internal division or put forward a message some members wouldn't support. Other parties did not worry about laying out their opinions. ACT's speaker was the most fervently against statehood. Labour, Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs all made strong speeches. So, what does the National Party, or indeed the prime minister think about Palestine and Gaza? That is still uncertain, though an attempt to tease it out was made in Question Time, when Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick asked Christopher Luxon a series of questions on Gaza. Both answers and non-answers can both be instructive. Below are the questions and answers from that interchange and a later one, with brief commentary. Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs that "There are a broad range of strongly held views within our government", and, if so, who in the government is opposing recognising Palestinian Statehood? Christopher Luxon: There are a broad range and strongly held views across the whole of our society and across the whole of New Zealand and, as you would expect, across this Chamber there will be a variance of views as well. Note: You will notice that the prime minister didn't answer that question. That is not newsworthy - Luxon usually avoids directly answering Opposition questions in the House. He usually segues to prepared talking points, using phrases like "what I can say is", or "I'll just say to the member". The questions he receives are often very political (and have few good answers), so his avoidance is understandable. Some of Swarbrick's queries were more straightforward though, offering openings for statesmanlike or informed answers - like the next one. Chlöe Swarbrick: What is the harm, if any, of recognising Palestinian statehood? Christopher Luxon: Well, it's been a longstanding position of successive New Zealand Governments since 1947 to recognise the creation of a State for Israel and a State of Palestine where two peoples can live together in peace and security. That has been a longstanding position of the New Zealand Governments of different political parties. The issue is that we need to, as we've said, as you've heard the foreign Minister say, and it's been a longstanding position-it's a matter of when, not if. But the immediate challenge for the situation in the Middle East is, of course, Hamas must release hostages. As a terrorist organisation, they must release those hostages. Secondly, Israel must allow unfettered humanitarian access into what is an absolute catastrophe, and there must be a ceasefire and diplomacy and dialogue. Note: The next question was politically couched, but still afforded options for a good answer. Chlöe Swarbrick. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister aware that Israeli hostages have been offered back multiple times and Israel currently holds approximately 10,000 Palestinian prisoners? Christopher Luxon: Sorry, I'm not going to respond to that question. That's not what I've been briefed on. Notes: Swarbrick appealed to the Speaker about that non-answer to a question she argued was seeking "to tease out the logic that [Luxon was] using with regard to government decision-making". Speaker Gerry Brownlee ruled in Luxon's favour, saying: "The prime minister said he wasn't prepared to answer it because it wasn't within the scope of the briefing that he's received." Parliament's rules do allow a few reasons why ministers might refuse to answer, including not giving a legal opinion, or an answer not being in the public interest. Not being briefed is not in the list, although some ministers do sometimes admit a lack of knowledge and offer to come back with a response. The next question felt like it was straight from a morning newspaper's five-minute quiz. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister aware, then, of our obligations under the genocide convention, and, if so, what are they? Christopher Luxon: Yes, and what I'd say to the member is I would be very careful throwing terms like "genocide" around. It's very important that the right bodies that we support under the international rules-based system - the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court - are those closest and are the appropriate bodies which we fully support to make those determinations. Notes: For extra quiz points - signatories to the UN's Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (including New Zealand) - undertake to prevent as well as punish genocide. It's there in the name. Strictly speaking that answer could have stopped at "yes", because ministers are only required to address any one leg of a two-legged question. However, saying yes, and then pivoting away does make one wonder whether the prime minister was worried about getting the second leg wrong. Admitting to an obligation to prevent genocide might have made for a difficult follow-up question. Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the prime minister finally willing to say that Israel's slaughter and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza is a genocide, and, if not, what does he know that Holocaust and genocide scholars don't? Note: Like many questions in Question Time this one actually falls outside the very strict parameters for questions (which do not allow the inclusion of supposition or argument). On this occasion ACT leader David Seymour intervened with an objection to the Speaker. Swarbrick reworded the question. Chlöe Swarbrick: What does the prime minister know that Holocaust and genocide scholars apparently do not when they call what is currently occurring in Gaza a "genocide"? Christopher Luxon: Well, what I know is that there's a humanitarian catastrophe happening in the Middle East. What I know is that we want to see peace and stability and security reign in the Middle East, and, for that to happen, Hamas must release hostages immediately. What happened on 7 October from a terrorist organisation inflicting 1200 deaths on innocent civilians was unacceptable. We are also saying, clearly - and we've done it through a number of calls with other countries as well - that we want Israel to give unfettered humanitarian access. We do not want more military action. We need to make sure that we actually see diplomacy and dialogue reign in the Middle East. Note: Anyone managing to tease out a solid party or government position on Palestinian statehood from that interchange would need to be a talented haruspex. It is worth noting that during Question Time the prime minister does not speak as a party leader, but as leader of the Executive. Previous prime ministers have at times made observations as individuals or have outlined the varying perspectives that coalition partners bring to an issue. On this issue I expect there is significant diversion of thought, both within and between the coalition member parties. Possibly it is creditable that the prime minister is not seeking to impose a perspective on his own MPs as leader. Later in Question Time Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer also focused on Palestine. Most of her questions were not well phrased and were disallowed, but the first two added a little to the picture. Speaker Gerry Brownlee. Photo: RNZ Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the prime minister allowing the government to delay recognition of the State of Palestine until September? Christopher Luxon: Well, it's a government that wants to weigh up its position over the next month. We acknowledge that some of our close partners have changed their position; others have not. We will work our way through the process, as we outlined on Tuesday. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What criteria does the prime minister believe Palestinians have not met that is preventing his government from immediately recognising their humanity and statehood on Wednesday? Christopher Luxon: Well, as I explained earlier, it's been a longstanding, bipartisan position that New Zealand supports a two-state solution. It goes right back to 1947 and the partition. We want to see a State of Israel and a State of Palestine living peacefully, side by side. But we are going to review and weigh up our position, as we articulated, and it's an important issue, it's a complex issue, and we'll work through it sensibly and seriously. Note: Luxon avoided answering several out-of-order questions that followed on the Israeli Defence Force having killed Al Jazeera journalists, whether the IDF's actions undermined Israel's own statehood, and what would be left to protect once the government makes a decision about statehood. * RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
