Latest news with #EqualPayAmendmentBill
Scoop
7 days ago
- Politics
- 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.
The Spinoff
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Marilyn Waring: Why I convened the people's select committee on pay equity
When it became clear the government had chosen ideology over evidence in its rushed-through changes to the pay equity system, former National MP Marilyn Waring decided to do something about it. I had tuned in to parliament to listen to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill debate on pay equity, and I didn't have to listen for very long to know there was no evidence to back this change in law. I sought to confirm this by going online and finding the parliamentary link to the legislation website. You look for the departmental disclosure statement and click on this link. After the general policy statement and the explanatory note, you get to part two: background material and policy information. (Yes, if they wanted you to find this it would be easier to access.) But you need to know this, because this is where you find out if anything other than ideology informed the changes in legislation. It operates as a mini audit, asking key questions that should have been part of the evidence for the change. In this case, it is a very rewarding quest. The first of the audit questions asks, 'Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this bill?' The answer is 'Yes', and three pieces of research work are referenced. Two of these are totally opposed to the changes in the bill: a report (by rigorous researchers) for the Human Rights Commission on pay equity and care workers, and a report by Research NZ that monitors social workers and employers before and after their pay equity settlement. Nothing in this report supports the changes, especially the response from employers. The other report was commissioned by Health NZ and the terms of reference were written by Health NZ. The researchers report that 'not enough evidence was received to fully answer the terms of reference'; many documents were not provided, and the wider context of the pay equity system could not be included in the report. This is the sole supporting evidence furnished to support the legislation. No regulatory impact statement was provided by MBIE. There was no analysis of 'the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth', (due to 'ministerial time constraints'), but apparently there was analysis of 'the size of potential costs and benefits'. This is an entertaining 'yes', as for a number of years pay equity found itself listed among the 'unquantifiable fiscal risks' along with natural disasters and Treaty settlements. So … how come we went from an unquantifiable fiscal risk to billions of dollars, and which wizards hiding where (I suspect Treasury) just made up the figures – because they don't add up! The next question in the disclosure statement is about New Zealand's international obligations and whether the bill is consistent with these. Oh dear: it's 2025 and the assessors in MBIE and MFAT looked at International Labour Organisation conventions and trade obligations, but didn't mention the Convention on all Forms of Discrimination against Women, so the answer is wrong. Then there's the mystery of what happened to the attorney general's advice to parliament on whether any provisions of the bill limit any of the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The site claims that there was such advice from the Ministry of Justice, so I scurried off to their site to find the Section 7 report – nothing there. How surprising. Next there is the claim that there was no 'external consultation on the policy to be given effect by the bill, or on a draft of this bill'. I seriously doubt this, and we will just wait for some loose lips in the post-budget estimates debates to reveal this. The government did, however, test the policy details with the Public Service Commission (where the pay equity group was disbanded in June 2024), Health NZ, the Ministry of Education and the Treasury. So, the government talked to itself, and what's more, every time they say 'employers', they are talking about themselves. In the absence of evidence for the debate we endured the lazy, specious, headline-grabbing and truly ignorant remarks about the comparators used in pay equity settlement. A comparison between social workers and air traffic controllers was one often quoted. I taught in the four-year Bachelor of Social Work, and the further one to two years for a Master of Social Work, at Massey University. Wherever I look on the web (New Zealand, Australia, UK), the skills and knowledge required for air traffic controllers are concentration, using judgment and making decisions, ability to work well under pressure, excellent verbal communication skills, problem solving, and paying attention to detail. In Aotearoa the qualifications can be gained in less than a year, at much less cost than a four-year social work degree. Understanding what a social work qualification means, I would happily employ a social worker as an air traffic controller but never contemplate the reverse. The minister claimed to be 'progressing this bill under urgency because we have to move quickly to make the changes to the act to ensure that the system is workable and sustainable'. No evidence whatsoever was presented to show the system was unworkable and unsustainable. Fourteen claims had been very well settled. Ideology was the only arbiter for these rubbish claims. I'm a researcher and I like to see evidence for such significant changes that continue to exploit women – an exploitation that has been present for my lifetime. I wondered what device could be used to collect that evidence. I began to call retired women MPs to see if they would join me in a people's select committee. We were set up in five days. The people's select committee is calling for submissions now – the deadline for written submissions is July 31, and oral submissions will begin on August 11. We will uncover and report on the information that should have been before any responsible government before the passage of such legislation, and we will make this available to all in Aotearoa.
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.
