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.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Scoop

6 hours ago

• Scoop

Overseas Investment Decisions Twice As Fast

Associate Minister of Finance Associate Minister of Finance David Seymour is encouraged to see overseas investment decisions being made twice as fast following his Ministerial directive letter (the letter) to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). 'Last year I issued a Ministerial directive letter setting out my expectations for faster consent processing timeframes under the Overseas Investment Act (the Act),' Mr Seymour says. 'The letter set my expectation that LINZ, the regulator for the Act, will process 80 per cent of consent applications in half the statutory timeframes for decisions. 'The financial year beginning 1 July 2024 is on track to meet my expectations. So far, LINZ has been processing 88 per cent of consent applications in half the statutory timeframe. 'Since this financial year began, processing times have reduced by 39 per cent faster than the previous financial year. The average timeframe has reduced from 71 working days in the last financial year, to 28 working days this financial year. 'The improvements to processing times are largely owed to the new risk-based approach LINZ take to verifying information and streamlining consent processes. This recognises that the majority of consent applications are low-risk and should be processed more efficiently. '1 July 2024 to 19 June 2025 saw 122 applications for overseas investment, decreasing from 146 in the financial year prior (both figures exclude 'only home to live in' applications). The decrease is explained by a significant drop in applications for residential land development due to poor property market conditions. I expect these numbers to bounce back with the rise of the property market. 'In order to have a strong growing economy New Zealand needs to be more welcoming to investment. Long waiting times for applications was creating uncertainty and impacting the attractiveness of investing in New Zealand. This affected New Zealand businesses that rely on overseas investment for capital or for liquidity. 'Since delegating most decision-making to LINZ and directing officials to focus on realising the benefits of overseas investment, there has been a significant improvement in processing times. 'Feedback from investors has been overwhelmingly positive, and they have welcomed the changes to make the application process more efficient, while still giving the right level of scrutiny to high-risk transactions. 'LINZ still has the full statutory timeframe to process 20 per cent of consent applications, which will allow them to manage complex and higher-risk applications. 'This week will see the first reading of thee Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill as well. 'The Bill will consolidate and simplify the screening process for less sensitive assets, introducing a modified national interest test that will enable the regulator to triage low-risk transactions, replacing the existing benefit to New Zealand test and investor test. If a national interest risk is identified, the regulator and relevant Minister will have a range of tools to manage this, including through imposing conditions or blocking the transaction. The current screening requirements will stay in place for investments in farmland and fishing quota. 'New Zealand has been turning away opportunities for growth for too long. Having one of the most restrictive overseas investment regimes in the OECD means we've paid the price in lost opportunities, lower productivity, and stagnant wages. This Bill is about reversing that. 'For all investments aside from residential land, farmland and fishing quota, decisions must be made in 15 days, unless the application could be contrary to New Zealand's national interest. In contrast, the current timeframe in the Regulations for the benefit test is 70 days, and the average time taken for decisions to be made is 30 days for this test,' says Mr Seymour. 'International investment is critical to ensuring economic growth. It provides access to capital and technology that grows New Zealand businesses, enhances productivity, and supports high paying jobs.

RNZ News

8 hours ago

• RNZ News

Climate Minister says gas shortage will lower greenhouse emissions

Kapuni gas plant. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says the gas shortage will lower greenhouse gas emissions, but at a cost for businesses that can't switch to electricity. Supply from existing gas fields has plunged since the government published its Emissions Reduction Plan in December 2024. Watts was asked in a scrutiny hearing in front of the environment committee of MPs why the government's climate plan had put such heavy emphasis on capturing and storing carbon dioxide underground at Kapuni gas field, when the project was untested and its prospects were now looking dubious. Watts blamed the gas shortage - but said the shortage itself would lower carbon dioxide emissions. He said, compared with when the plan was written, "New Zealand has less gas than it thought". "Less gas that's available by virtue is less emissions, so in some ways there is an acceleration of the emissions reduction because we simply don't have that gas available," he said. "We are at critical levels in the context of low levels of gas. Some may say with a purely climate hat on, well that's good, there are no emissions and therefore they can't use it (gas)," Watts said. "But the reality is, in a manufacturing and industrial sense there are a number of businesses who either have an inability to transition to other sources ... or doing so is a significant fiscal cost and/or time horizon." Watts said the government was looking at ways to help those companies. "The good thing is, in the current environment there is an economic [and] commercial case to transition off gas because electricity is cheaper, and therefore the commercial imperative is driving that transition." "I'll take market intervention over government regulation any day." Watts said the government's assumptions regarding future gas use and the prospects of carbon capture at Kapuni would need to be reassessed and the results would published later this year. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) condenses carbon dioxide and stores it underground in reservoirs. Overseas, some high profile projects have been controversial because taxpayer funds for climate action were being paid to some of the planet's biggest emitters, fossil fuel companies, to capture and store just a tiny fraction of their pollution underground. Fully a third of the carbon savings needed to meet the government's legal obligations to cut emissions from 2025-2030 was supposed to come from carbon dioxide being stashed permanently underground at Taranaki's Kapuni gas field. But in May, Kapuni's owner Todd Energy told RNZ the project wasn't viable unless it received some kind of extra incentive or subsidy from the government. The scheme would earn carbon credits for every tonne of emissions stored, but Todd said the market price of carbon was too low to justify the investment. Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone At the scrutiny hearing, Watts was grilled by opposition MPs on whether Todd Energy had asked for direct subsidies from the government. Watts said he hadn't seen such a request, but Labour MP Deborah Russell presented him with an answer to a written question in Parliament, confirming Todd had asked for subsidies. Watts didn't directly answer Russell when she asked what the government's reply had been. He said in regards to support for industries "there's a number of aspects that remain under active consideration". Watts said the government was still committed to passing regulations allowing carbon capture and storage as "one tool in the toolbox" for lowering emissions. RNZ asked Todd to clarify what it had asked for. It said it had not asked the government for a direct subsidy for carbon capture and storage at Kapuni. But the company confirmed it wanted either co-investment, government underwriting or shared liability with the taxpayer for any future carbon leaks from the project. Todd has previously argued the government should treat carbon capture and storage facilities as infrastructure. "In our 2024 submission to MBIE (Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment) on the CCUS consultation, we did signal that government support - particularly in the form of risk-sharing or enabling mechanisms - would be essential for CCS to proceed in New Zealand," it said. "Particularly, we noted that New Zealand's declining gas reserves make the economics of CCS challenging and that 'for CCS to be effective, the government should consider sharing project risks and responsibilities. "It could be liability for leakage, particularly if the intent is to store third party CO2 in time. Due to challenging economics there is also financing risk that co-investment or a government underwrite could help to de-risk," said the company. Todd Energy had previously estimated the Kapuni field would have room for storing carbon dioxide produced by other companies, as well as its own. Earlier in the hearing, Watts was asked by National MP Grant McCallum about the risk of "emissions leakage" if New Zealand started lowering its methane emissions from farming. Emissions leakage refers to the risk of production moving overseas to get away from emissions pricing in its country of origin. Watts defended the necessity of meeting New Zealand's climate targets and international obligations. "You hear some on some corners saying, we're very small and insignificant," he said. "Every country, big or small, has a role to play in terms of reducing emissions and New Zealand is part of the Paris Agreement for that purpose. "In terms of adding up all the small and insignificant countries, it adds up to 40 per cent of global emissions," Watts said. "If we pull out, what signal does that send? There are three countries that are not part of the Paris Agreement, the USA and a number of other countries that most people probably have probably never heard of." [Those countries are Iran, Libya and Yemen . "Russia, China, India, they're all part of the Paris Agreement, and all the other countries we would look to - the only one is the US. "In regards to the implications on international trade, ... New Zealand has a reputation as a primary sector exporter of red meat, dairy and other products," he said. "Why would we put that at risk?"

1News

11 hours ago

• 1News

Live stream: David Seymour fronts at post-Cabinet media conference

David Seymour is is taking questions from the media following the regular meeting of Cabinet. The ACT leader, who took over as Deputy PM from Winston Peters this month, is in the hot seat as acting Prime Minister while Christopher Luxon is in Europe. Cabinet met today after a two-week break, which included "scrutiny week" when MPs get to grill ministers about their departments and ministries. The meeting came against the backdrop of war in the Middle East, with an RNZAF C-130 en route to the region to help evacuate Kiwis. Luxon has also been in China where he met President Xi Jinping.