Latest news with #IanPowell
Scoop
5 days ago
- Health
- Scoop
Gisborne Hospital Senior Doctors Strike Highlights Important Health System Issues
Opinion – Ian Powell Todays dispute is in response to the uncompetitive conditions of employment, particularly salaries (there is a pay gap with Australia of around 65% on base 40-hour salaries). By International Labour Organisation standards, the right of employees through their unions to lawfully strike in Aotearoa New Zealand is limited. In summary, there are only two lawful grounds – in negotiations for a collective employment agreement (whether multi or single employer) and on health and safety grounds. New Zealand's first senior doctors strike The first strike undertaken by senior doctors was during negotiations for a single employer collective agreement between the South Canterbury District Health Board and the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS). The dispute centred on inferior remuneration compared with senior doctors in the other DHBs. Health and safety was not a factor. There were four six hour strikes during the normal working week in February-March 2003. As ASMS Executive Director I was the union advocate for South Canterbury's senior doctors. At that time there were no life preserving services agreements required by legislation. However, consistent with the Hippocratic Oath of 'first do no harm,' only scheduled elective (planned) procedures, including surgery, and treatments were affected. Acute treatment that could not be clinically deferred continued. Further, additional notice to than required by law was given. This meant that no elective procedures were cancelled because they had yet to be scheduled in the first place. The strikes were successful in various respects. Subsequently I discussed this in an academic article published later that year in the Journal of Employment Relations titled 'Downing Scalpels and Stethoscopes' (unfortunately it didn't prove possible to locate a link). The almost first national senior doctors strike In 2007-08 ASMS came close to holding the first national strike by senior doctors. This was over a national collective agreement covering all the district health boards (DHBs). The issues were improving remuneration and other conditions and preventing employer attempts to clawback existing consultation rights and weaken a non-clinical time entitlement. However, the protracted dispute was unexpectedly complicated midstream by the increasing loss of specialists to Australia, beginning with Queensland, following mind-bogglingly large salary increases 'across the ditch.' ASMS's strategy was gradual escalation always leaving the employers with the opportunity to reconsider. Highly publicised and massively attended stopwork meetings (similar but technically different from two-hour strikes focussed on non-acute services) were held in each of the DHBs (two in some) over a concentrated period. They were followed by a resounding national postal ballot, with a high response rate, authorising ASMS's National Executive to organise strike action. This proved to be the tipping point. The publicised and membership supported escalations arguably had more effect than had senior doctors gone straight to strike action without this staged escalation. It led to new Labour Health Minister David Cunliffe intervened by directly collaborating with the parties to facilitate a satisfactory resolution without having to proceed with strikes. Owing to the high profile of his intervention it was both brave and risky for Cunliffe. It could have easily gone 'belly-up.' But it didn't; instead, it worked. In addition to the withdrawal of consultation clawbacks and weakening the non-clinical time entitlement employer claims, the settlement included positive improvements to employment entitlements (including salaries) and inclusion of a strong engagement provision. What is notable about both these two disputes, one leading to strikes and the other using the gradual escalation towards a strike to good effect, is that health and safety issues were not at the forefront of the narrative (although it was starting to emerge towards the end with the start of the increasing loss of specialists to Australia). Gisborne Hospital senior doctors strike On 28 May 50 senior doctors employed by Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) at Gisborne Hospital 'walked of the job' at midnight for a 24-hour strike. Similar to their above-mentioned South Canterbury colleagues over 20 years earlier, cover continued to be provided for acute care, including emergencies. One could be forgiven from the media coverage for believing that this was a strike over health and safety concerns. Highlighted was the fact that while all public hospitals suffer from severe senior doctor shortages, Gisborne Hospital had the unwanted record for having the highest rate. The extent of these shortages and the dismissive government response had been previously reported by Marc Daadler in Newsroom (23 April): Gisborne doctors expose Government's inaccurate staffing claims. Radio New Zealand's Morning Report covered the strike that same day in a piece that included interviews with senior doctors: Gisborne Hospital senior doctors strike. In response to a disingenuous criticism from Minister of Health Simeon Brown that the strike was delaying treatment for patients, physician Dr Alex Raines noted that the strike would cause only minor disruption compared to ongoing delays from chronic understaffing. The striking senior doctors also received full support from the Gisborne community including Mayor Rehette Stoltz, again in Morning Report, on the day of the strike: Gisborne Mayor supports striking senior doctors. Senior doctors themselves went the extra mile to connect with the public with the organisation of donations to a local food bank, including a free sausage sizzle, as reported by the Gisborne Herald (30 May): Striking senior doctors support Gisborne foodbank. Recognising the level of community support for the doctors, Dr Raines observed that 'There's a warmth and solidarity in the community that's very special.' In turn, the head of the food bank said they '…supported the doctors in their kaupapa of supporting the unwell and vulnerable of the community.' Important health system issues The strike action by Gisborne Hospital's senior doctors raises important issues for our health system. First, and foremost, this strike was the first of a series of local hospital-based strikes in pursuit of a new national collective agreement. They are not on the grounds of health and safety. These local strikes follow last month's national strike. However, in contrast to the South Canterbury strikes of 2003 and the staged escalations of the national dispute in 2007-08, health and safety is directly linked to this dispute. Today's dispute is in response to the uncompetitive conditions of employment, particularly salaries (there is a pay gap with Australia of around 65% on base 40-hour salaries). This sits behind the severe widespread senior doctor shortages which, in turn, sits behind high levels of fatigue and burnout. It means that Health New Zealand is required by the Government to continue to underpay its senior doctors who are left having to make up the deficit by paying for the health system with their health. Patients also pay for the deficit by being put at greater risk of harm, even death. Another health system issue is that senior doctor strikes receive strong community support (the same can be seen for nurses). While the Government does not value the health system's senior doctors (and nurses), the public does. In South Canterbury on 2003 Grey Power were actively and publicly supporting the striking senior doctors. Strong public is occurring right now for striking senior doctors in Gisborne as articulated by the city's mayor and foodbank. Finally, providing they don't completely flop, strikes are empowering for those undertaking the action. This was certainly the case in South Canterbury. In fact, the strikes contributed to improving the relationship between senior doctors and senior management (without any change in personnel). There is every reason to believe that the strike actions being undertaken and planned by Health New Zealand's senior doctors won't be similarly empowered. In this context it is timely to recall the observation of British working class historian EP Thompson that from struggles comes increased consciousness.
Scoop
23-05-2025
- Health
- Scoop
'I Can Confirm They Are Hypotheticals Drawn Largely From Anecdotes And Issues The Minister Has Heard About.'
Ian Powell discusses when health professions regulatory authorities policy is shaped by second hand anecdotes and issues. Before reading further hold on to the words in my heading above. Then consider who said, 'I can confirm they are hypotheticals drawn largely from anecdotes and issues the minister has heard about'. Further, who did the comment refer to, what was its context and meaning, and what is the significance of this meaning? The context is a review of the regulatory health professions presently being undertaken by the Ministry of Health for Health Minister Simeon Brown. However, the ideological origin of the review is the coalition Government agreement between the National and Act parties. Regulation of health professions is covered by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Its overriding purpose was to provide a framework for the regulation of health practitioners to protect the public where there is a risk of harm from professional practice. The Act included the requirement for scopes of practice for each of the regulated occupations. Eighteen regulatory authorities cover 26 professions. The authorities that cover the largest professions are the Medical and Nursing Councils. Health Ministry discussion document As part of the review the health ministry published a discussion document under the misleading 'milk and honey' title of 'Putting Patients First: Modernising health regulation'. But drill down further and a more sinister picture emerges. My drilling down was recently published by Newsroom (24 April): Threatening political meddling in health regulatory authorities. My main points about this discussion document were: It is based on a false construct that too much regulatory 'red tape' was making it more difficult to ensuring that New Zealanders 'have access to timely, quality healthcare'. There was a complete absence of evidence to justify its contentions. In fact, contentions were contradicted by evidence. It is ideologically loaded and weak arguing by insinuations and with an obviously pre-determined outcome in mind. It raised several questionable scenarios to justify regulatory change that could, in fact, be resolved within the existing system (discussed further below). The biggest threat implicit in the document was political interference in the functioning of the regulatory authorities thereby weaking their responsibility to protect the public from harm. The risks for patients being diagnosed and treated by the medical profession was succinctly outlined by the Chair of the Medical Council, Dr Rachelle Love (a Christchurch head and neck surgeon) on Radio New Zealand's Nine to Noon programme (8 May): Increased political control risk. In rebutting the claims of the Ministry's discussion document, Dr Love said that what it proposed risked leading to increased political control. Instead, the real issue was the retention of doctors which was ignored by the Ministry. General practitioners don't pull their punches Steve Forbes in a paywalled article published by NZ Doctor (17 April) reported Dr Angus Chambers, general practitioner and Chair of the General Practices Owners Association (GenPro) concerns. The latter was at his forthright best. He described the consultation practice for the Health Ministry's discussion document as poorly designed and amounted to a consultation process with a preordained outcome. If implemented, it would lower both standards of care and clinical safety guidelines. Dr Chambers assessed the process as being 'completely cynical' adding, as reported by Forbes, that: There are good reasons for the different specialised regulatory authorities to oversee various health professionals, he says. But he is concerned the consultation paper is designed to get a 'quick-fix response from the public'. Further: Opening the floodgates to new, less-qualified health professionals, such as physician associates, to plug workforce gaps isn't the solution, Dr Chambers says. 'If we had enough GPs, we wouldn't need these additional professions.' General practitioner and Chair of Women in Medicine Dr Orna McGinn also questioned the credibility of the process in her LinkedIn page: The document presents a case to further politicise the health landscape via deregulation and undermining of commitments to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and thereby address inequities in health access and outcomes. We note that two government statements concerning practitioner scope and regulation were published before closure of the consultation period. This raises doubts as to the validity and legality of the process. Scenarios scam The dubious use of the above-mentioned scenarios in the Ministry of Health's discussion document to justify the 'preordained outcome' highlighted by Dr Chambers unsurprisingly attracted strong and angry responses. No wonder than NZ Nurses Organisation Chief Executive Paul Goulter called it poor quality and that it should be withdrawn. The scenarios led to the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS) formally complain to both the Public Services Commissioner and Director-General of Health over their use. Two of the scenarios claimed that podiatrists being unable to prescribe some feet medicines and approval for new occupational groups, such as physician associates, were being obstructed by the existing regulatory system. Soon after the Health Ministry released its discussion document, approval for both issues occurred. The former made sense while the latter (which was a ministerial decision) did not. But both demonstrated that working through the existing regulatory system led to the sought outcomes. ASMS meanwhile also pursued the scenarios controversy with the Health Ministry under the Official Information Act. The response from a Ministry official to ASMS, as reported in another paywalled Forbes article (6 May) was: I can confirm they are hypotheticals drawn largely from anecdotes and issues the minister has heard about. The answers to my opening questions The official's response reinforces what many suspected. The Ministry's discussion document was largely written from within Health Minister's office. A feature of his office is the absence of health system experience understanding, including about the intent of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act discussed above, is poor. Returning to my above opening questions, the Health Ministry made the comment, and it was referring to their health minister Simeon Brown. The context was a false construct that the health professions regulatory authorities were contributing to the health workforce crisis. The meaning was that political involvement was required even though this poses serious risks to the authorities prime legislative responsibility to protect the public from harm. As for the significance of its meaning it highlights the serious risks of harm to the health and wellbeing of the public (and to health professionals) when decision-making is ideologically driven and designed by those with at best minimal health system experience. No wonder, as I observed in my above-mentioned Newsroom article, the failure of the discussion document's authors was not being able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. They should have listened to Jonathan Swift. Given the ideological origin and consequential high level of predetermination they never had even a dog's chance.
Scoop
18-05-2025
- Health
- Scoop
Predictable Smear On Senior Doctors
Ian Powell discusses a predictable smear by a right-wing blogger on salaried senior doctors employed by Health New Zealand. During my lengthy stint as Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS) one of my most important functions was to negotiate the collective agreements covering salaried senior doctors and dentists employed in public hospitals. From 1989 to 1991 these were national negotiations; until 2000 negotiations were conducted separately with each main public hospital; and then, until 2019, they were national again with all the district health boards. On occasions these negotiations were protracted and somewhat tetchy (or tetchy plus!). It became quite predictable that, when this occurred, at some point the employers would engage in a public misrepresentation or smear in an endeavour to undermine our credibility. To the best of my recollection these public actions never came from health ministers (a few private grumblings notwithstanding) or bloggers (although I can't dismiss the possibility that far-right blogger Cameron Slater didn't hold back; he didn't towards me on other issues). Health Minister Simeon Brown broke the practice with his public attack on ASMS over the recent senior doctors one day strike. This was caused by the impasse in negotiations over the national collective agreement with Health New Zealand. He began by badly misrepresenting basic salary levels. He also claimed that the strike was causing delayed access to planned (elective) surgery. This was more than a tad rich. Under his leadership and that of his predecessors, access was already being increasingly delayed every other day of each year. Joining in on misrepresentation and smearing Now right-wing blogger David Farrar has jumped in support of Brown with his own smear on his Kiwiblog site (7 May): Perks smear. He alleges that salaried senior doctors employed by Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health received 'huge perks'. It is important to understand what perks are (and what they are not). They are additional benefits to enhance the employment package such as health insurance or a company car. They don't involve reimbursement of actual and reasonable work-related expenses. The problem with Farrar's argument is that it is based on major errors and sloppy homework. This is not new territory for him. I have previously called him out (11 December) for erroneous claims about resident (junior) doctors leaving for Australia: Farrar's incomplete health workforce analysis. Farrar's hearsay evidence On this second occasion his evidence is based on a reader writing to him claiming that salaried senior doctors employed by: … Health NZ and the Ministry of Health get generous leave and expenses for so-called professional development – which is often an overseas conference in an exotic location – flying business class and staying in a premium hotel. I have this on good authority from someone who processes the claims! This leave and generous allowance which can accumulated for two or more years. This is hardly robust investigation. At best it is hearsay. To begin with, Health Ministry employed senior doctors are not covered by the collective agreement covering Health New Zealand employed senior doctors. Farrar is discussing something that applies to the latter, not the former. Further, claims to the two different employers would not be processed by the same person By referring only to one part of the entitlement and then incorrectly calling it an allowance, he is both selective and factually wrong. Getting to the facts The entitlement (I was the advocate who first negotiated it) is spelt out in Clause 36.2 of the national agreement. Its first subclause (a) begins with: The employer [Health New Zealand] requires employees [senior doctors and dentists] to be fully informed, and where possible, practised in developments within their profession. To facilitate this, employees will be entitled to leave for 10 working days (pro rata for part-time employees) continuing medical education each financial year (1 July – 30 June), plus any agreed reasonable travelling time. This is what Farrar ignores. Continuing medical education (CME) leave is something the employer requires of this particular occupational group. This is in order to help ensure that they can perform their duties and responsibilities to the level of competence, quality and patient safety required. The rest of sub-clause covers administrative matters, including accruals. Farrar's focus is primarily on the next sub-clause (b). He does not ignore it. Instead, he gets it badly wrong. The sub-clause reads: Employees shall be reimbursed actual and reasonable expenses of up to $16,000 per annum (GST exclusive) and accumulated on the same basis as the working days (a) above. This reimbursement is pro-rata for part-time employees except that part-time employees whose only income from medical or dental practice is derived from their employment with one employer shall be entitled to the full reimbursement. The fundamental distortion (or mistake if one is in a generous frame of mind) by Farrar is to call the monetary amount an allowance. It is not. It is a capped reimbursement of work-related expenses. Furthermore, it is not an absolute $16,000. It is up to this amount subject to claims being actual and reasonable. The specification of a specific dollar amount serves the interests of both employer and employees even though, for the latter, it is capped (potentially it could cost Health New Zealand more if there was no cap). However, the cap better enables planning and budgeting for both parties. While use of the leave and associated reimbursements is often used for medical or dental conferences, they have to be relevant to duties and responsibilities. Further, it can also be for other approved options such as working at another location or study. Fringe benefits tax sideshow Farrar's distortion (or mistake) leads him to then argue that the fringe benefits tax must apply and has to be paid by Health New Zealand. Somehow, he estimates the total additional cost to be least $23,880 (presumably per annum). But it does not attract this tax because the entitlement is not an allowance. Perks apply to allowances, not work-related reimbursements. Much of the CME expenses are spent on consumables such as travel and accommodation. Where conferences are involved there also registration costs. While some of these costs are close to home (Australia), our relative geographic isolation means that greater distances are required to exercise the full benefits of this necessary form of professional development and education. The one exception where the fringe benefits tax might impact (it might instead be PAYE) is that the entitlement can be used for the personal purchase of laptops (that is, a personal capital product) for the express purpose of professional development and education. However, this requires specific employer approval and, to the extent that it happens is only a small component of the costs of the entitlement. Farrar goes further to falsely imply that the two weeks CME itself, which is required by Health New Zealand, is also a perk. Let me be very clear. Based on my experience in the health system, I would not want to be treated or diagnosed by a senior doctor who was not sufficiently utilising their CME leave entitlement. Patient safety has been compromised as a consequence. Sloppy mistakes or deliberate distortion? Finally, Farrar proceeds to make an astonishing attack on the credibility of senior doctors. He refers to something he had 'heard' (further hearsay). One employed by the health ministry had allegedly used the 'allowance' to a global conference on air pollution and health. First, the entitlement is for Health New Zealand employed senior doctors. Second, if the person nevertheless was able to receive the same provision, it is not an allowance. Third, a health ministry employed senior doctor able to attend this event is most likely to be a public health specialist. If so, giving the relationship between air pollution and poor health, it would be up there among the most valuable events to attend if the health ministry were to properly perform its stewardship role for the health of New Zealand's population. Is David Farrar's smear due to sloppy mistakes or deliberate? Readers can be the judge of that.
Scoop
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Gender Pay Inequity Perpetuation And Venality
Opinion – Ian Powell Ian Powell discusses the Governments unexpected decision to rush through Parliament legislation gutting gender pay equity claims. On 6 May the Government ignited a political earthquake with its unexpected blindsiding decision to ram through parliamentary urgency the gutting of the pay equity provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1972. With multi-partisan support the Act had been amended to include these provisions in 2020. The decision was announced by Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden (also ACT Deputy Leader) under the distorting heading of 'Changes to Improve Pay Equity Process': Government justification. Historical Context The recent history of pay equity claims had centred on the efforts of the then Service and Food Workers Union (now part of the E tū union, the largest private sector union in Aotearoa New Zealand) whose National Secretary was the strategically focussed John Ryall. Ryall was acutely aware of the poor remuneration and other conditions of vulnerable largely female workers employed in rest homes. This led to discussions with employment lawyer Peter Cranney in which legal avenues were considered. Cranney is nothing but rigorous and innovative. He explored the then largely forgotten Equal Pay Act 1972 and discovered a way forward through the courts. Legal action commenced in 2012 centred on aged care worker Kristine Bartlett. After protracted but successful cases in the courts (including against appeals) a favourable landmark ruling was achieved. National's Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Bill English accepted that a legal precedent had been established. This led to him making an informal overture to John Ryall in order to find a way forward. English and Ryall were political opposites, but they also shared two characteristics – pragmatism and mutual respect. It led to the formation of a Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles. In 2016 the group provided recommendations to guide the implementation of pay equity, noting that the Equal Pay Act had relied on the courts to determine principles for assessing pay equity issues and setting pay rates. Equal Pay Amendment Bill Consequently, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament in September 2018 (the same year in which Kristine Bartlett was awarded Kiwibank's New Zealander of the Year), passed its third reading in July 2020, and came into force in November. The 2020 amendment allowed workers to make a pay equity claim using a process aligned with New Zealand's existing bargaining framework. By making court action a last resort, the approach lowered the bar for workers initiating a pay equity claim. It meant that employers, workers, and unions would be able to negotiate in good faith, with access to mediation and dispute resolution services available if necessary. Implementation, however, was delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic. Comparing 2020 with 2025; from a considered process to an unconsidered process While the pay equity amendment bill in 2020 was enacted by a Labour led coalition government (which included NZ First), it arose out of a process initiated by a National-led government. Consistent with this reality, the National Party also supported the 2020 amendment. The key point of difference was that the 2020 amendment was based on a considered process whereas its gutting in 2025 was not. The kindest statement that can be made is that it was based on a non-considered or ill-considered process. Further, it was done within days without any opportunity to make representations. Such rushed parliamentary legislative processes like this are normally reserved for emergency or extreme urgency situations. There was nothing remotely like these circumstances to justify the ramming through the disempowering pay equity counter-amendment. Further, in the 2023 election campaign, National did not indicate any interest in repealing the legislation it had strongly supported in 2020. Soon after becoming Workplace Relations Minister in November 2023, reportedly Brooke van Velden privately advised Prime Minister Christopher Luxon that she was going to look at the pay equity legislation. But there was no public statement about this until the blindsiding 6 May announcement. It was one of the most secretive political processes ever. Analysing the pay equity appeal Much has been rightly said on the undemocratic and duplicitous process in which the gutting of the pay equity occurred. Poor process is a high predictor of a bad outcome. The unjustified retrospective cancelling of a reported 33 live pay equity claims has also been rightly condemned. But the substantive issue is that the Government, by increasing the threshold for reaching settlements, has ensured that future pay equity claims for somewhere between many to all affected women are much more likely to fail or not even initiated. In other words, rather than improving pay equity as the Government disingenuously asserts, its repeal will perpetuate pay inequity for working women. This is why the legislative gutting is being forcefully described as a betrayal by so many, including Kristine Bartlett. Business journalist Bernard Hickey summarised it in his email publication The Kākā (8 May) as Carers, teachers & nurses lost up to $17b, to fund $14b of tax cuts. Pay equity grab wrecks wage rises worth up to $17b over 4 years, paying for $14b of tax cuts for NZ's wealthiest. Pope Francis provides words of wisdom There has been extensive media coverage which has been overwhelmingly unflattering. This includes the following: A good introductory backgrounder by Laura Walters in Newsroom (8 May): Locking out future pay equity claims. An erudite contextual overview from historian Professor Anne Salmond, with a bit of help from the late Pope Francis, in Newsroom (9 May): She won't be right mate. Veteran NZ Herald political columnist Audrey Young describes it as robbing Paula to pay Paul and a backfiring political ambush (9 May): Ambush will bite National. Not to be outdone, veteran Sunday Star Times political columnist discusses the political implications and the increasing risk of election loss (11 May; paywalled): Grotesquely bad politics. From a different angle Council of Trade Unions economist Craig Renney raises on Substack many pay equity questions that the Government has yet to answer (9 May): Unanswered questions. Otago University senior psychology lecturer Dr Ryan Ward offers, also on Substack, a class perspective in which he argues that the Government's decision it may be a turning point (9 May): Notes from the class war. Finally, Steve Braunias provides humorous insights in Newsroom (9 May): Secret diary of pay equity reforms. While Brooke van Velden appears to have gone to ground, at least in the public eye, it has been left to Finance Minister Nicola Willis to provide the most substantive defence of the Government's actions (12 May in The Post): Unconvincing and disingenuous defence. Her article is assertive but ignores the significance of raising the threshold for consideration of pay equity claims. She also misrepresents the use of comparators for considering claims. The canned live pay equity claims The reported 33 live pay equity claims that were cancelled as a consequence of the rammed through legislation were predominantly across education, health, and the public service. Many involved non-government organisations that depended on government funding. The gender breakdown in these specific lower paid workforces ranged between 65-99%. Workers covered by these now deceased claims (some groupings below involve more than one live claim) included: Librarians. Social service workers. Home support and aged-care residential workers. Plunket nurses, clinical and administration/clerical. Community midwives in primary birthing units. Hospice nurses and health care assistants. Primary care (general practices) nurses and administration staff. Access community nurses. Awanui medical laboratories. Nurses in residential care. Artificial Limb Service. Education Ministry and Corrections Department employed psychologists. Secondary school teachers (the largest group). What characterises them over and above being female dominated workforces (although their male colleagues would also benefit had the claims been successful), is that these women worked largely in dispersed small workplaces. Consequently, apart from secondary teachers, they were less able to organise collectively. This vulnerability meant that they were in absolute or relative terms lower paid. What this all means As appalling as this pay equity decision is, it should not be seen in isolation. Rather it is part of a right-wing policy continuum of the Government discriminating against lower paid more vulnerable workers. This continuum began with the immediate repealing of the Fair Pay Act. This act was designed to enable more dispersed vulnerable workers to have more of a level playing field in order to achieve fair pay and other conditions. This was followed by a minimal increase to the already low Minimum Wage. Making pay equity difficult to achieve is the most recent (and biggest) step in this cruel policy direction. The electoral difficulties for Luxon's government are significantly increased given the strength of reactive public reaction to the pay equity decision and the number and vulnerability of those directly affected. Whether it tips the existing fine balance between his government becoming a one-term government or not remains to be seen. But it will certainly make re-election more difficult than it previously was. It is both incumbent on and politically appropriate for the opposition parties to commit to repealing this pernicious legislation within the first 100 days should some or all of them form the next government. Getting to politically venal Pay equity does not threaten capitalism; they can cohabitate with each other. But the pay equity process can empower workers which capitalism is not well-disposed towards. Further, to the extent that it extends to the for-profit private sector, it can potentially constrain greedy profit-maximisation. Again, this is something that capitalism is not well-disposed towards. Venal is nasty word. It involves dishonesty and open to corrupt influences. Venality does not automatically flow from capitalism, but it is incentivised by capitalism, including in politics. Normally venality is associated with an exchange of money although in this case the venality is more politically ideological than monetary driven. The Government's pay equity legislation could have easily been named the Pay Inequity Perpetuation Bill or, alternatively, the Pay Equity Disempowering Bill. In this context, calling the gutting of pay equity venal does not seem inappropriate.
