Latest news with #EqualPayAmendmentBill
NZ Herald
18-05-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Employment law changes are a setback for NZ workers
Minister of Workplace Relations Brooke van Velden has her sights set on reforming the Health and Safety at Work Act. Photo / Marty Melville THREE KEY FACTS So many employment rights regressions, so little time. To start, this month the Government rammed through the Equal Pay Amendment Bill under urgency, gutting a law that helped women challenge entrenched pay discrimination. The new Equal Pay law reverses 2020 changes that streamlined
Scoop
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Pay Equity Puzzle: Can We Compare Effort, Skill And Risk Between Different Industries?
Article – The Conversation Pay equity is not the same as equal pay, and is harder to calculate because womens work is concentrated in low-paying industries. But without pay equity, all New Zealanders pay. Last week's move by the government to amend pay equity laws, using parliamentary urgency to rush the reforms through, caught opposition parties and New Zealanders off guard. Protests against the Equal Pay Amendment Bill have continued into this week, driven to some extent by disappointment that an apparent political consensus on the issue has broken down. In 2017, the National-led government passed a forerunner to the current legislation for the health sector only, the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act. Later, in opposition, National also supported the Labour government's Equal Pay Act in 2018, as well as the Equal Pay Amendment Act in 2020. That legislation was designed to extend a pay equity process to all occupations and create a clearer pathway for making pay equity claims. With both major parties seemingly aligned, some 33 pay equity claims were under way. Those claims – all halted now – involve the education, health and social services sectors. As such, the government would have to meet the costs of successful claims. This explains why one rationale for the law change has been that the claims were potentially too expensive. The other rationale (preferred by Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden) is that the existing policy wasn't sufficiently rigorous in determining the validity of some claims. In reality, both the cost and the policy framework allowing equity claims to proceed are interrelated: the more permissive the framework, the higher the potential cost to the government and employers. But while equal pay for equal work is the goal, it's important to understand that equal pay and pay equity are not the same thing. Equal pay is about making sure men and women are paid at the same rate in a specific occupation. Pay equity, on the other hand, involves a more complex process. It aims to establish pay relativities between famale-dominated industries and other sectors using specific criteria. And herein lies the core of the argument. Comparing different work sectors According to van Velden, the framework for comparing different kinds of work was too loose, or simply not realistic: You have librarians who've been comparing themselves to transport engineers. We have admin and clerical staff […] comparing themselves to mechanical engineers. We don't believe we have that setting right. On the surface, this may seem logical. And previous policy advice provided to the government suggests the recent law change will move New Zealand's framework into line with other countries. But using a proxy method of comparison between types of work in different industries or sectors remains central to any pay equity claim. That's because pay equity seeks to make visible and fix the deep, structural inequalities that have historically seen women's work undervalued compared to men's work. It's about ensuring jobs that are different but of equal value are paid similarly, as a way to achieve gender equality. Women's employment is still concentrated in lower-paying industries and occupations, so comparisons have to be made with other sectors. The factors used to measure that relativity are known as 'comparators'. Rather than using tools developed and tested under the previous legislation, the new system will introduce 'a hierarchy of comparators', with a preference for comparators to be chosen within the same industry or occupation making the pay equity claim. Comparators are selected to help compare the nature of different kinds of work in male-dominated and female-dominated industries. This is based on an assessment of skills, experience and qualifications, level of responsibilities, types of working conditions and degree of effort. The assessment is completed through in-depth interviews with workers in comparison occupations. It uses resources such as Employment New Zealand's skills recognition tool to evaluate the validity of those comparators. Different kinds of cost The subjective nature of valuing different kinds of work is part of the problem, of course. But New Zealand research shows only part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to objectively measurable pay differences within specific industries. Pay equity is about addressing both the objective and subjective elements contributing to that gap. We'll need to carefully monitor the new system to see whether its narrower comparator requirements affect its capacity to close the gender pay gap. Treasury's concerns also need to be considered. The former budget allocation of NZ$17 billion over four years suggests the costs of settling pay equity claims may be considerable. On the other hand, they may be bearable. Last year in the United Kingdom, for example, Birmingham City Council was effectively bankrupt and feared pay equity claims might be a final straw. In the end, the costs were not as high as initially anticipated. Finally, focusing exclusively on reducing fiscal cost risks other costs rising instead. Women who are paid less than they should be will struggle to put food on the table, pay back student loans, get onto the property ladder, contribute to Kiwisaver and afford their retirement. Without pay equity, in other words, there is less economic activity in general. Disclosure statement Gemma Piercy received funding from the Pay Equity Unit (2004-2009), part of the former Department of Labour, now Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Bill Cochrane has received funding from the Human Rights Commission for research on the gender pay gap.
Scoop
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Pay Equity Puzzle: Can We Compare Effort, Skill And Risk Between Different Industries?
Article – The Conversation Pay equity is not the same as equal pay, and is harder to calculate because womens work is concentrated in low-paying industries. But without pay equity, all New Zealanders pay. Last week's move by the government to amend pay equity laws, using parliamentary urgency to rush the reforms through, caught opposition parties and New Zealanders off guard. Protests against the Equal Pay Amendment Bill have continued into this week, driven to some extent by disappointment that an apparent political consensus on the issue has broken down. In 2017, the National-led government passed a forerunner to the current legislation for the health sector only, the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act. Later, in opposition, National also supported the Labour government's Equal Pay Act in 2018, as well as the Equal Pay Amendment Act in 2020. That legislation was designed to extend a pay equity process to all occupations and create a clearer pathway for making pay equity claims. With both major parties seemingly aligned, some 33 pay equity claims were under way. Those claims – all halted now – involve the education, health and social services sectors. As such, the government would have to meet the costs of successful claims. This explains why one rationale for the law change has been that the claims were potentially too expensive. The other rationale (preferred by Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden) is that the existing policy wasn't sufficiently rigorous in determining the validity of some claims. In reality, both the cost and the policy framework allowing equity claims to proceed are interrelated: the more permissive the framework, the higher the potential cost to the government and employers. But while equal pay for equal work is the goal, it's important to understand that equal pay and pay equity are not the same thing. Equal pay is about making sure men and women are paid at the same rate in a specific occupation. Pay equity, on the other hand, involves a more complex process. It aims to establish pay relativities between famale-dominated industries and other sectors using specific criteria. And herein lies the core of the argument. Comparing different work sectors According to van Velden, the framework for comparing different kinds of work was too loose, or simply not realistic: You have librarians who've been comparing themselves to transport engineers. We have admin and clerical staff […] comparing themselves to mechanical engineers. We don't believe we have that setting right. On the surface, this may seem logical. And previous policy advice provided to the government suggests the recent law change will move New Zealand's framework into line with other countries. But using a proxy method of comparison between types of work in different industries or sectors remains central to any pay equity claim. That's because pay equity seeks to make visible and fix the deep, structural inequalities that have historically seen women's work undervalued compared to men's work. It's about ensuring jobs that are different but of equal value are paid similarly, as a way to achieve gender equality. Women's employment is still concentrated in lower-paying industries and occupations, so comparisons have to be made with other sectors. The factors used to measure that relativity are known as 'comparators'. Rather than using tools developed and tested under the previous legislation, the new system will introduce 'a hierarchy of comparators', with a preference for comparators to be chosen within the same industry or occupation making the pay equity claim. Comparators are selected to help compare the nature of different kinds of work in male-dominated and female-dominated industries. This is based on an assessment of skills, experience and qualifications, level of responsibilities, types of working conditions and degree of effort. The assessment is completed through in-depth interviews with workers in comparison occupations. It uses resources such as Employment New Zealand's skills recognition tool to evaluate the validity of those comparators. Different kinds of cost The subjective nature of valuing different kinds of work is part of the problem, of course. But New Zealand research shows only part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to objectively measurable pay differences within specific industries. Pay equity is about addressing both the objective and subjective elements contributing to that gap. We'll need to carefully monitor the new system to see whether its narrower comparator requirements affect its capacity to close the gender pay gap. Treasury's concerns also need to be considered. The former budget allocation of NZ$17 billion over four years suggests the costs of settling pay equity claims may be considerable. On the other hand, they may be bearable. Last year in the United Kingdom, for example, Birmingham City Council was effectively bankrupt and feared pay equity claims might be a final straw. In the end, the costs were not as high as initially anticipated. Finally, focusing exclusively on reducing fiscal cost risks other costs rising instead. Women who are paid less than they should be will struggle to put food on the table, pay back student loans, get onto the property ladder, contribute to Kiwisaver and afford their retirement. Without pay equity, in other words, there is less economic activity in general. Disclosure statement Gemma Piercy received funding from the Pay Equity Unit (2004-2009), part of the former Department of Labour, now Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Bill Cochrane has received funding from the Human Rights Commission for research on the gender pay gap. Suzette Dyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Scoop
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Pay Equity Puzzle: Can We Compare Effort, Skill And Risk Between Different Industries?
Last week's move by the government to amend pay equity laws, using parliamentary urgency to rush the reforms through, caught opposition parties and New Zealanders off guard. Protests against the Equal Pay Amendment Bill have continued into this week, driven to some extent by disappointment that an apparent political consensus on the issue has broken down. In 2017, the National-led government passed a forerunner to the current legislation for the health sector only, the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act. Later, in opposition, National also supported the Labour government's Equal Pay Act in 2018, as well as the Equal Pay Amendment Act in 2020. That legislation was designed to extend a pay equity process to all occupations and create a clearer pathway for making pay equity claims. With both major parties seemingly aligned, some 33 pay equity claims were under way. Those claims – all halted now – involve the education, health and social services sectors. As such, the government would have to meet the costs of successful claims. This explains why one rationale for the law change has been that the claims were potentially too expensive. The other rationale (preferred by Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden) is that the existing policy wasn't sufficiently rigorous in determining the validity of some claims. In reality, both the cost and the policy framework allowing equity claims to proceed are interrelated: the more permissive the framework, the higher the potential cost to the government and employers. But while equal pay for equal work is the goal, it's important to understand that equal pay and pay equity are not the same thing. Equal pay is about making sure men and women are paid at the same rate in a specific occupation. Pay equity, on the other hand, involves a more complex process. It aims to establish pay relativities between famale-dominated industries and other sectors using specific criteria. And herein lies the core of the argument. Comparing different work sectors According to van Velden, the framework for comparing different kinds of work was too loose, or simply not realistic: You have librarians who've been comparing themselves to transport engineers. We have admin and clerical staff […] comparing themselves to mechanical engineers. We don't believe we have that setting right. On the surface, this may seem logical. And previous policy advice provided to the government suggests the recent law change will move New Zealand's framework into line with other countries. But using a proxy method of comparison between types of work in different industries or sectors remains central to any pay equity claim. That's because pay equity seeks to make visible and fix the deep, structural inequalities that have historically seen women's work undervalued compared to men's work. It's about ensuring jobs that are different but of equal value are paid similarly, as a way to achieve gender equality. Women's employment is still concentrated in lower-paying industries and occupations, so comparisons have to be made with other sectors. The factors used to measure that relativity are known as 'comparators'. Rather than using tools developed and tested under the previous legislation, the new system will introduce 'a hierarchy of comparators', with a preference for comparators to be chosen within the same industry or occupation making the pay equity claim. Comparators are selected to help compare the nature of different kinds of work in male-dominated and female-dominated industries. This is based on an assessment of skills, experience and qualifications, level of responsibilities, types of working conditions and degree of effort. The assessment is completed through in-depth interviews with workers in comparison occupations. It uses resources such as Employment New Zealand's skills recognition tool to evaluate the validity of those comparators. Different kinds of cost The subjective nature of valuing different kinds of work is part of the problem, of course. But New Zealand research shows only part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to objectively measurable pay differences within specific industries. Pay equity is about addressing both the objective and subjective elements contributing to that gap. We'll need to carefully monitor the new system to see whether its narrower comparator requirements affect its capacity to close the gender pay gap. Treasury's concerns also need to be considered. The former budget allocation of NZ$17 billion over four years suggests the costs of settling pay equity claims may be considerable. On the other hand, they may be bearable. Last year in the United Kingdom, for example, Birmingham City Council was effectively bankrupt and feared pay equity claims might be a final straw. In the end, the costs were not as high as initially anticipated. Finally, focusing exclusively on reducing fiscal cost risks other costs rising instead. Women who are paid less than they should be will struggle to put food on the table, pay back student loans, get onto the property ladder, contribute to Kiwisaver and afford their retirement. Without pay equity, in other words, there is less economic activity in general. Gemma Piercy, Lecturer, Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Waikato; Bill Cochrane, Senior Lecture in Sociology and Social Policy, University of Waikato, and Suzette Dyer, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, University of Waikato Disclosure statement Gemma Piercy received funding from the Pay Equity Unit (2004-2009), part of the former Department of Labour, now Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Bill Cochrane has received funding from the Human Rights Commission for research on the gender pay gap.
1News
15-05-2025
- Politics
- 1News
Hipkins admits question that led to Parliament C-bomb a 'mistake'
Labour leader Chris Hipkins says it was a "mistake" for the party to quote from a controversial opinion column, that used the C-word. He says it has now become a "distraction" from the Government's pay equity changes. MP Jan Tinetti quoted a line, which did not include the C-word, from the controversial Sunday Star-Times article, while she asked a question in Parliament yesterday. The use of the column prompted a ferocious response from the Government benches, with Minister Brooke Van Velden describing the column itself as "clearly misogynistic". Tinetti stood by her decision to quote from the column yesterday, with the question having gone through Labour's usual processes for receiving sign off. But Hipkins changed tack today, saying it had become a "distraction" from the issue of the Government's pay equity changes, which affected hundreds of thousands of women. "I think we need to get back to that issue now, rather than the other things, in so far our quoting from a rather controversial comment yesterday meant that the Labour Party was contributing to the distractions around that. I think we will own that," Hipkins said. "It would have been better if we had quoted from something else, rather than from that particular column. I'll leave it up to the newspaper itself to defend the particular column. "I think us quoting from it contributed to a distraction that took the issue away from where it needs to be, which is the plight of low-paid women who are simply asking to be paid fairly." Parliamentary debate hears outrage after a columnist used the c-word in an article about the Government ministers. (Source: 1News) Tinetti's question yesterday was: 'Does she agree with Andrea Vance, who said about the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, "It is a curious feminist moment, isn't it? Six girlbosses—Willis, her hype-squad Judith Collins, Erica Stanford, Louise Upston, Nicola Grigg, and Brooke van Velden—all united in a historic act of economic backhanding other women"." Later, Van Velden used the C-word herself when slamming the column. "I do not agree with the clearly gendered and patronising language that Andrea Vance used to reduce senior Cabinet ministers to girl bosses, hype squads, references to girl math and c****s," she said in Parliament in response to Tinetti's question. "I actually think it's very curious — and it's a very curious feminist moment — when a former minister for women repeats parts of a clearly misogynistic article in this House." Brooke van Velden became the first MP to use the word in the House of Representatives as she quoted a Sunday Star-Times article. (Source: 1News) Asked why Labour had shifted its position on the question's appropriateness, Hipkins said: "This has now become a big distraction that's taking away from what is a very fair issue. "We made a mistake there. I think when people who are affected by this see politicians fighting with each other and making it all about themselves, as we've seen in the last 24 hours, I think they'll feel somewhat despondent and dejected. Labour MP Willie Jackson ejected as the culture clashes continue in the House. (Source: 1News) "We should get back to talking about the issues that affect them." Tinetti told 1News yesterday the focus of her question to van Velden was to highlight that "women were taking pay away from women", adding that she deliberately chose a quote from the column that was not misogynistic. Labour has been hammering the Government over its pay equity changes in the past week, which were passed under urgency and raised the threshold to make a claim. Managing director of Stuff Masthead Publishing, Joanna Norris, said in a statement that the column and the C-word were "carefully" considered as part of "robust" debate around the pay equity legislation. "Stuff has published a spectrum of commentary on the pay equity issue, including a reply to the column this week from the Minister of Finance. 'The issue of sex based discrimination, and the Government's changes to pay equity legislation under urgency, have caused robust debate on all sides. "This is not the first time our editors have allowed the use of this word — it is carefully reviewed by experienced editors and, on this occasion, it was decided it was acceptable usage in the context of this column." Norris said Vance, and her editor Tracy Watkins, "have received both strong support for — and criticism of — the column's views and the manner in which they were expressed".
