
NZ Government Blocks 'Pay Equity' Claims For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Workers
New Zealand's right-wing coalition government last week passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act, which is designed to make it much harder—perhaps impossible—for workers in female-dominated professions to claim that they are underpaid because of gender-based inequity.
The amendment was announced on May 6 by Workplace Relations Minister Brooke Van Velden, from the far-right ACT Party. It was rushed through parliament the next day under anti-democratic 'urgency' provisions to limit public discussion and scrutiny.
The legislation is part of the government's austerity regime, which involves brutal cuts to healthcare, education and welfare, a virtual pay freeze across the public sector, and thousands of layoffs. Its aim is to increase the exploitation of the working class, divert more public money to the super-rich, and to fund a vast increase in military spending to prepare for war.
Van Velden told reporters the government was 'not taking money from anybody'—a transparent lie. In the same media conference, she said the new pay equity framework would lead to 'very real and significant cost reductions.'
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon confirmed that money set aside in the budget—to be announced on May 22—to settle pay equity claims can now be reduced. He expected the government to save 'billions of dollars.'
The government has cancelled 33 pay equity claims that were being negotiated under the old system, affecting hundreds of thousands of workers, mainly in the public sector. The unions involved will be forced to reapply under the new thresholds.
The largest outstanding claim covers 94,000 teachers in the primary, secondary and early childhood sectors. It was lodged under the previous Labour Party-led government at the end of 2020 and negotiations have dragged on for years.
The new law changes the definition of work 'predominantly performed by female employees.' It states that 70 percent of the workforce must be women (up from 60 percent under the previous law) and that this must have been the case for at least 10 years. In high schools, 63 percent of teachers are women, meaning that they may be barred from re-submitting a pay equity claim.
The government has also removed the ability for previously settled claims—including for nurses, social workers, librarians and aged and disability carers—to be regularly reviewed and adjusted.
For new claims, there are much stricter criteria for assessing whether 'sex-based undervaluation' of workers exists in a given profession. Claimants' work must be compared with 'work that is the same or substantially similar' to that performed by men or by a majority-male workforce.
Van Velden criticised pay equity claims which compared librarians with mechanical engineers, and social workers with air traffic controllers. She said this was 'muddying the waters' between sex-based discrimination and pay gaps that were caused by other things such as 'market forces.'
The law change has triggered widespread anger, with thousands of people joining protests across the country last week outside the offices of government MPs. A petition by the unions calling for the amendment to be reversed gained more than 65,000 signatures by Sunday night.
The opposition Labour Party, the Greens and the union bureaucracy, however, are working to prevent an organised movement by the working class against austerity. They are telling workers to wait for the next election in 18 months.
Labour's workplace relations spokesperson Jan Tinetti told the BHN podcast that people should 'get behind' Labour, the unions and their allies. 'Together we can fight this and we can make a difference, and we can be so much stronger in 2026 to win that election and put this right again,' she said.
Former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark (1999-2008) shared a post on X stating: 'When the parents, partners and children of women in the workforce vote in 2026 we will remember this moment.'
Jacinda Ardern's 2017-2023 Labour Party-led government heavily promoted pay equity deals, mainly as a means to subordinate workers to the union apparatus and suppress a broader movement against low wages and austerity.
Thirteen pay equity deals were reached, the most significant covering about 30,000 nurses in public hospitals. The nurses received pay rises of between 18 and 20 percent in 2023. While not insignificant, this followed decades of near-frozen wages under successive Labour and National-led governments, enforced by the union apparatus.
That settlement, touted by Labour and the unions as a 'historic' achievement, is already being undermined through a new round of wage cuts. Nurses have been offered a pay rise of just 1.5 percent over a two-year period, which is well below the increase in the cost of living. Nurses held two part-day strikes in December 2024, but since then the New Zealand Nurses Organisation has organised no action and remained silent on the negotiations.
Notwithstanding the pay equity settlements, the Ardern government presided over a worsening social crisis, including increased homelessness and child poverty. The Labour Party lost the 2023 election in a landslide as living costs soared and it campaigned on cutting jobs in the public sector, to make workers pay for the developing economic crisis.
Labour also agrees with the government's decision to raise spending on the military from 1 to 2 percent of gross domestic product. This will divert an extra $12 billion to the armed forces over the next four years, which will be paid for by further eviscerating public services. By comparison, the cost of the pay equity settlements reached thus far is just $1.78 billion a year.
Fleur Fitzsimons, national secretary of the Public Service Association, wrote in the Post: 'The PSA will not be taking this outrageous attack on the rights of women workers lying down. We will be fighting this in the streets and in the courts.'
The PSA, however, has not announced any strike action. It has done nothing to oppose the thousands of job cuts across multiple government agencies over the past year-and-a-half. The union vocally supports the vast military spending increase, which is at the direct expense of workers.
The statements by the union bureaucracy blaming low wages for teachers, healthcare workers, caregivers and others entirely on gender discrimination serves to disorient and divide the working class.
There is a gender pay gap: Women's median hourly earnings are 8.2 percent less than men's. But the fundamental division in society is the gulf between the working class and the financial and business elite, whose wealth is based on the exploitation of workers of every nationality, gender and ethnicity.
Feminist identity politics, which blames low pay on 'sexism' and 'patriarchy,' obscures the reality that male-dominated sections of the workforce have experienced major attacks on wages and conditions in recent decades. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in meat processing, agriculture, construction, transport, forestry and other sectors of the economy have become casualised and insecure, with low wages and often dangerous working conditions.
The richest 5 percent of the population owns 45.5 percent of the country's wealth, while the poorest half of the population owns just 2 percent. According to figures released in 2023, New Zealand's richest 311 families collectively owned $85 billion in assets. All the capitalist parties, including Labour and its allies, are dedicated to the enrichment of this parasitic layer.
A real fight against austerity must be directed against the actual source of inequality, which is not men, but the capitalist system. To carry out such a struggle, workers have to build new organisations: rank-and-file committees, independent of the pro-capitalist union bureaucracy. They must reject the divisive nationalism and identity politics promoted by the unions, Labour and various pseudo-left organisations.
Workers need to adopt a socialist strategy, aimed at expropriating the wealth hoarded by the billionaires and dismantling the armed forces of the state, in order to raise living standards for all workers and to fund a vast expansion of public healthcare, education and other services.
12 May 2025

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

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
The David Seymour ‘bots' debate: Do online submission tools help or hurt democracy?
ACT Party leader David Seyour in studio for an interview on season 3 of 30 with Guyon Espiner. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill , led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 30 with Guyon Espiner , that figure reflected "bots" generating "fake" submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to "online campaigns" that generate "non-representative samples" that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be "pretty difficult". "You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard." The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. "You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions." The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. "The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value." Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. "It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission." However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. "The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that." But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. "For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times." Jordan Williams co-founded the Taxpayers' Union in 2013 with David Farrar. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. "Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic," he said. "It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar." AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. "Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised," Williams said. Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. "When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing," he said. "But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits." Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. "The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. "To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.


Otago Daily Times
15 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
US vetoes UN demand for Gaza ceasefire
The United States has vetoed a draft United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an "immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire" between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza and unhindered aid access across the war-torn enclave. The other 14 countries on the council voted in favour of the draft on Wednesday as a humanitarian crisis grips the enclave of more than 2 million people, where famine looms and aid has only trickled in since Israel lifted an 11-week blockade last month. "The United States has been clear: We would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza," Acting US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea told the council before the vote, arguing that it would also undermine US-led efforts to broker a ceasefire. Washington is Israel's biggest ally and arms supplier. The Security Council vote came as Israel pushes ahead with an offensive in Gaza after ending a two-month truce in March. Gaza health authorities said Israeli strikes killed 45 people on Wednesday, while Israel said a soldier died in fighting. Britain's UN Ambassador Barbara Woodward criticised the Israeli government's decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict humanitarian aid as "unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive." Israel has rejected calls for an unconditional or permanent ceasefire, saying Hamas cannot stay in Gaza. Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon told the council members who voted in favour of the draft: "You chose appeasement and submission. You chose a road that does not lead to peace. Only to more terror." Hamas condemned the US veto, describing it as showing "the US administration's blind bias" towards Israel. The draft Security Council resolution had also demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and others. RIVAL AID OPERATIONS The war in Gaza has raged since 2023 after Hamas militants killed 1200 people in Israel in an October 7 attack and took some 250 hostages back to the enclave, according to Israeli tallies. Many of those killed or captured were civilians. Israel responded with a military campaign that has killed over 54,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities. They say civilians have borne the brunt of the attacks and that thousands more bodies have been lost under rubble. Under global pressure, Israel allowed limited UN-led deliveries to resume on May 19. A week later a controversial new aid distribution system was launched by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, backed by the US and Israel. Israel has long accused Hamas of stealing aid, which the group denies. Israel and the US are urging the UN to work through the GHF, which is using private US security and logistics companies to transport aid into Gaza for distribution at so-called secure distribution sites. "No one wants to see Palestinian civilians in Gaza go hungry or thirsty," Shea told the Security Council, adding that the draft resolution did not "acknowledge the disastrous shortcomings of the prior method of aid delivery." The UN and international aid groups have refused to work with the GHF because they say it is not neutral, militarizes aid and forces the displacement of Palestinians. No aid was distributed by the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation on Wednesday as it pressed the Israeli military to boost civilian safety beyond the perimeter of its so-called secure distribution sites after a deadly incident on Tuesday. The GHF said it has asked the Israeli military to "guide foot traffic in a way that minimises confusion or escalation risks" near military positions, provide clearer civilian guidance and enhance training of soldiers on civilian safety. 'DELAYS AND DENIALS' The GHF posted on Facebook that "ongoing maintenance work" would delay the opening of its distribution sites on Thursday. It said on Tuesday that it has so far distributed more than seven million meals since it started operations. Despite US and Israeli criticism of the UN-led Gaza aid operation, a US ceasefire plan proposes the delivery of aid by the United Nations, the Red Crescent and other agreed channels. Israel has agreed to the ceasefire plan but Hamas is seeking changes that the US has rejected as "totally unacceptable." Ahead of the Security Council vote, UN aid chief Tom Fletcher again appealed for the UN and aid groups to be allowed to assist people in Gaza, stressing that they have a plan, supplies and experience. "Open the crossings – all of them. Let in lifesaving aid at scale, from all directions. Lift the restrictions on what and how much aid we can bring in. Ensure our convoys aren't held up by delays and denials," Fletcher said in a statement. The UN has long-blamed Israel and lawlessness in the enclave for hindering the delivery of aid into Gaza and its distribution throughout the war zone. "Enough of suffering of civilians. Enough of food being used as a weapon. Enough is enough is enough," Slovenia's UN Ambassador Samuel Zbogar told the Security Council. A similar humanitarian-focused draft resolution is now expected to be put to a vote in the 193-member UN General Assembly, where no countries have a veto power and it would likely pass, diplomats said. Danon warned: "Don't waste more of your time, because no resolution, no vote, no moral failure, will stand in our way."


Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
More Kiwis Oppose Than Support Government's Pay Equity Changes, New Poll Shows
Article – RNZ Nearly two thirds of the public believe the government should have first sought feedback on the controversial change, the latest RNZ Reid Research poll shows., Deputy Political Editor More New Zealanders oppose than support the government's shake-up of the pay equity regime, and a clear majority think the public should have been consulted first, a new poll shows. The latest RNZ Reid Research survey found 43.2 percent of respondents were against the overhaul, compared to just 25.5 percent in favour. Nearly a third – 31.3 percent – remained unsure. On the question of consultation, 68 percent said the government should have first sought feedback, with only 18.6 percent saying no. The remainder – 13.4 percent – were undecided. That opinion carried through to voters' party preferences, with even a slim majority of ACT voters agreeing that there should have been consultation, despite the changes being championed by Workplace Relations Minister and ACT deputy leader Brooke van Velden. The poll also indicated limited public comprehension: just 49.7 percent said they understood the changes, 38.2 percent admitted they did not, and a further 12.1 percent were unsure. More than half of those who claimed a lacked of understanding still expressed an opinion about the policy: 38 percent said they opposed it and 13 percent said they supported it. Respondents were surveyed from 23 May through to 30 May, capturing the immediate reaction to last month's Budget and the $12.8 billion of savings made from the coalition's pay equity pivot. Van Velden had announced the overhaul several weeks earlier, before passing legislation through all stages under urgency. Among the key changes: a new merit test was introduced, as well as a greater focus on whether employers could afford higher wages. The threshold to lodge a claim was lifted, and job comparisons across different industries were restricted. Along with the changes, the coalition also extinguished the 33 claims already being considered under the previous scheme. The government argues the regime had expanded beyond its remit, becoming too costly and confusing. The opposition parties and unions says the changes will make it harder for those in female-dominated sectors to achieve fair pay. The RNZ Reid Research result follows a similar question asked in the latest 1News Verian Poll, released on Tuesday. It found 45 percent opposed the pay equity changes, compared to 39 percent in support, and 16 percent who did not know or wouldn't say. Speaking to RNZ, van Velden said she had received mixed feedback but believed the community now recognised that the changes were necessary. 'It's always going to be a difficult conversation,' she said. 'We have fixed resources, we have to make those difficult decisions on behalf of New Zealanders.' And Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ he would not do anything differently if given the chance again. 'We made some pretty tough decisions to go through under urgency. But we had to fix a very unworkable and unaffordable law. It had got completely out of whack.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis suggested some of the public opposition or lack of understanding could have been driven by Labour promoting 'misinformation'. 'Labour have had a very confused position, and their hyperbole in claiming that we were ending equal pay has ultimately done a disservice to them and the people they're seeking to represent, because it's basically untrue.' But Labour leader Chris Hipkins said that was sheer desperation. 'Women up and down the country have a right to feel angry,' Hipkins said. 'The government cut billions of dollars that was otherwise going to be going into low paid women's pay packets, and now they're just desperately trying to deflect attention away from that.' The latest RNZ Reid Research poll showed National and ACT losing support, and without the numbers – even with NZ First – to form a government. ACT leader David Seymour said he did not put much stock in any one poll but acknowledged the recent pay equity changes could be on some voters' minds. 'Doing what is right is what is politically popular in the long term, and even if I'm wrong about that, good policy is worth it anyway. 'We have left New Zealand with a more sensible pay equity regime focused on actual gender-based discrimination, and I think that's worth it.' This poll of 1008 people was conducted by Reid Research, using quota sampling and weighting to ensure representative cross section by age, gender and geography. The poll was conducted through online interviews between 23-30 May 2025 and has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The report is available here.