'Where was the care of thought?': Greens criticise ministers over pay equity advice

Teanau Tuiono.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Government ministers did not get advice on what the changes to pay equity would mean for specific claims in their portfolios, ahead of the legislation that would discontinue the claims being introduced.
The Green Party said it is another example of the lack of consultation over the changes, with thousands of workers blindsided by the government.
But the government maintains it made the changes to deliver clarity and certainty to workers, and the changes will improve the design and overall process for raising and resolving claims.
Thirty-three unsettled claims were halted by the changes passed through Parliament last month, and will need to start again under the new threshholds, due to the legislation applying retrospectively.
Review clauses under existing settled claims have also become unenforceable.
Affected workers and the wider public were not consulted on the changes ahead of their announcement, there was no Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill, and with the legislation going through under urgency there was no opportunity for a select committee process.
Through written questions, the Greens' workplace relations and safety spokesperson Teanau Tuiono asked ministers what advice they received prior to the introduction of the legislation, about specific claims under their portfolio coverage.
Tuiono sent the questions to:
Brown, Collins, Doocey, and Upston told Tuiono that advice they receive is available on their relevant ministry's or agency's website, but they did not refer to pay equity at all in their responses.
Seymour said in his capacity as an associate minister, he had not received advice, but as a Cabinet minister participated in Cabinet discussions on pay equity.
Chhour, Mitchell, Potaka, Reti, Simmonds, Stanford, and Watts confirmed they had not received advice related to specific claims.
Grigg told Tuiono the changes "do not halt claims," and claims can still be raised "in a manner that is more robust, more sustainable, and more workable to address sex-based discrimination in the workplace."
She said she was involved in conversations about the legislation, including policy discussions, and consultation on the Cabinet paper where advice was provided by officials.
Stanford's response said the advice she received was regarding policy changes to address historical sex-based discrimination for women overall, and was "not limited" to particular sectors or claims.
"This government is committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace," she wrote.
Tuiono said the ministers' responses showed the government had not shown any thought towards the impact the changes would have on the thousands of workers going through a claim.
"I thought there would at least be some sort of analysis being done by each of those ministers to determine 'this impacts workers within my portfolio area, what does that actually mean?' But none of that has been done, they've just discarded people's roles and jobs and treated them with the utmost disrespect," he said.
"Where was the thought? Where was the care of thought for the impact on these people as well? Why was there no analysis done on what the ongoing impacts would be?"
The Public Service Association's national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said it showed arrogance in developing the changes.
"This government promised evidence-based policy, but is not even interested in seeking the views of their own agencies when coming after pay equity," she said.
Fitzsimons said it was ironic, given the ACT Party's principles around regulatory standards.
"It is hypocritical from the ACT Party to introduce a Regulatory Standards Bill which includes elements of consultation better than they've done when it comes to New Zealand women and pay equity."
Since making the announcement last month, the government has defended the lack of consultation, and has been at pains to stress the changes do not get rid of equal pay or pay parity.
On Sunday, the Prime Minister again defended the approach.
"We moved very quickly, under urgency. We could have done it a different way... and put a lot of people and claimants into limbo for some time. We didn't think that was fair," Christopher Luxon said.
"We think we need one system, not two systems... you can argue if you've got a different view on that, but we made a decision that we wanted clarity and we wanted certainty, and that's why we did it the way we did it."
Van Velden, the minister who introduced the legislation, told RNZ the changes were not in response to any particular sector or claim that was underway.
Brooke van Velden.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
"This is a policy that I said at the start of my term I was interested in pursuing. It became really clear this year that my Cabinet colleagues wanted me to work on this as quickly as I could. I am a team player and so I did my job," she said.
"The ACT Party would love strong regulatory standards that is core to who we are as a party, but I was asked by my Cabinet colleagues to do this and I did it for the government."
In her responses to Tuiono, van Velden gave him a list of the formal advice she had received on pay equity from February to April, including reports from Treasury, the Public Service Commission, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment.
They included papers on possible legislative approaches and key questions, as well as the Cabinet papers.
She also confirmed neither she nor her office had communicated with any employer parties or their representatives regarding the changes, and no lobbyists or consultants were consulted.
But she said officials did consult other officials in the public service in the development of the changes, including some in their capacity as employers, referring to a Reviewing Policy Settings Cabinet paper.
The paper
was developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commission.
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Crown Law Office were consulted on the paper, while the Ministry of Education and Health New Zealand were consulted on the proposals.
The paper also explained why van Velden did not make any announcements on the changes until the bill was introduced, saying she was "cognisant" of the risk announcing the changes before the bill could prompt pay equity claims being filed and potentially determined by the Employment Relations Authority under the then-existing Act.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RNZ News

8 hours ago

• RNZ News

Iwi must deal with us 'whether they want us or not'

A seabed mining protest held earlier in June. Photo: RNZ / Emma Andrews The head of a company that wants to mine millions of tonnes of ironsands from the seabed off the Taranaki coast says local iwi - which unanimously oppose the project - must engage with Trans-Tasman Resources "whether they want us or not", when it gets its consents. TTR has approval to vacuum up 50 million tonnes of sand annually from the South Taranaki seabed for 35 years to extract iron, vanadium and titanium, but the company still needs consent to discharge 45 million tonnes of unwanted sediment a year back into the shallow waters. The company has previously been thwarted through legal challenges right up to the Supreme Court and is currently going through the fast-track consenting process. TTR said it can mine the seabed environmentally safely, and its project would significantly boost the national and regional economies. Managing director Alan Eggers outlined the virtues of the project to councillors and members of the public - many of whom opposed it - for about an hour at a workshop last week. At the conclusion of his presentation, councillor Bryan Vickery asked Eggers why - despite his compelling case - did all eight Taranaki iwi oppose the project, and why was there a disconnect between TTR and iwi. In May, Ngā Iwi o Taranaki released a statement on behalf of the eight Post Settlement Governance Entity iwi of Taranaki, voicing their support for South Taranaki iwi in their opposition to seabed mining off the coast of Pātea. "Our iwi stand alongside our southern iwi to support them and amplify their concerns about seabed mining in their takiwā," said Ngā Iwi o Taranaki pouwhakahaere Wharehoka Wano. "We encourage all iwi to support our South Taranaki whānau in their deep opposition to TTR and seabed mining." Eggers told the workshop TTR had documented its interactions with iwi and they were extensive. "We're very disappointed at the lack of engagement that they have given us. They haven't engaged, they've refused to engage with us. "We would love to engage with them and, let me say this, we are going to be working with South Taranaki iwi when we get our consent, whether they like want us or not. "We're going to want them on board, and were going to want them to actually do a lot of this marine monitoring and research." After the meeting, Eggers told RNZ that iwi previously wanted to invest in the project. "We had a quite good relationship with South Taranaki iwi to start with and they were quite keen, in fact, to join us as perhaps an equity partner in the project, invest in the project. We'd welcomed that." Protect Our Moana group member and Parihaka uri Tihikura Hohaia said he didn't know who Eggers was talking about, when he said TTR had consulted with iwi. "He certainly hasn't come to consult with any of us grassroots whanau, hapū that are keeping our home fires burning on our marae... not at all, I can tell you that right now." Hohaia didn't hear anything in Eggers' presentation that made him think the project could go ahead in an environmentally safe way. "I don't believe it," he said. "It mustn't go ahead. "If it goes ahead, it's going to condemn our already impoverished, trampled uri to generations of protest." During his presentation, Eggers spoke to economic benefits and environmental credentials of TTR's project, while councillors and the public gallery maintained a steely silence. He pointed to the 3.2 billion tonne resource TTR had discovered in the South Taranaki Bight, saying it could generate export revenues of $1 billion a year, making it New Zealand's 11th or 12th largest exporter. The project would create about 1320 jobs nationally, and generate $190 million in government royalties and taxes per annum, Eggers said. Taranaki would benefit significantly. New Plymouth would be the operational headquarters, and Hāwera a training and logistics base. TTR would directly employ 305 people in Taranaki - 270 operational staff and 35 in administrative support. Eggers said 1125 jobs would be generated in the region in logistics, supplies, services and maritime operations. Port Taranaki and Whanganui Port would be upgraded, and TRR would spend $250 million annually in Taranaki. He brushed off concerns about the project disturbing marine mammals and rocky reefs, arguing - with supporting evidence - that there were no reefs in the project area and visits by blue whales anywhere near the mining site were extremely rare. Concerns about the plume created by dredging the seafloor were also dismissed, Eggers arguing that waters near the site would be no more turbid than during a stormy day and reefs would not be smothered. At the conclusion of his presentation, Eggers took about half a dozen questions from councillors, before Mayor Neil Holdom drew the meeting to a close. Eggers thought the meeting went well. "Well, I was pleased to have been given the opportunity, and hopefully I did give them some facts and figures around the project, and its benefits and effects." Hohaia remained unconvinced. "It felt very violent against a backdrop of a cultural upbringing in an area of land loss and so the pure focus on economics for us, the people in the room, sitting in the gallery, it seemed totally bereft of any wairua, of any spirit at all." He said proud opponents of the project sat through the address "with dignity". "These kinds of presentation, as you'd expect, are all about money, all about the supposed benefits through that perspective alone. We've seen enough environmental degradation, we've seen enough cultural degradation here in Taranaki to know better than to be lured by any more sliver coins." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

RNZ News

11 hours ago

• RNZ News

The House: Tactics from the 'Scrutiny Week' bear pit

Photo: VNP/Louis Collins This week, Parliament hosted a twice-yearly event called 'Scrutiny Week'. It was a sitting week and MPs were expected to be in Wellington, but the House didn't sit, no legislation was debated and there were no question times. Instead, the ministers were all expected to spend time fronting hearings in the 12 subject select committees defending their budget plans - hence 'scrutiny'. On the Sunday edition of The House (above) you can hear an interview with Lawrence Xu-Nan about Scrutiny Week and the intense preparation necessary. You can also listen to a quick description of a few of the more political tactics observed in hearings. Politics muddies everything in Parliament, including Parliament's role in providing governance over governments. In Scrutiny Week, some politics is inevitable in both MPs' questions and ministers' answers. Our focus on the tactics is more about the answers than the questions, because those answering tend to employ a wider range of techniques. Either the ministers have more tactical options available or they are more creative in finding them. No matter who is in government, some ministers genuinely engage in the spirit of the event, freely answering questions and providing information. Others tend to be grudging with details. Some face aggressive political questions evincing fiercely political answers and a few appear to just really enjoy the stoush. Photo: VNP/Louis Collins Listen above for examples of political questions and answers tactics, including rejection of questions, answering alternative questions, redefining the terms, insult and humour as a defence, and various ways to eat up time. Oddly, sometimes ministers get so involved in the tussle that they ignore options to their own benefit. Typically, sitting beside a minister under scrutiny are senior ministerial officials - whose answers are less politically suspect. Sometimes, if an official can get a word in, the detail given is positive and the minister had no reason to be obfuscating - other than for the fun of the stoush. The audio above might give the appearance that Scrutiny Week is an endless and frustrating bear pit, and it can be, but we also saw hearings where ministers from all the governing parties gave good answers and had constructive interchanges with the committees, sometimes even in contentious areas. That is especially true in hearings where officials from ministries or agencies are providing information, but examples of good in-depth discussions are, almost by definition, far too lengthy to include in a short programme. Good politics is seldom quick politics. Photo: VNP/Phil Smith *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.

RNZ News

15 hours ago

• RNZ News

Defence Force to send plane to assist New Zealanders in stranded Iran and Israel

The C-130J Hercules, along with government personnel, will leave Auckland on Monday. Photo: RNZ / Calvin Samuel The Defence Force is sending a plane to the Middle East to assist any New Zealanders stranded in Iran or Israel. The C-130J Hercules, along with government personnel, will leave Auckland on Monday. Airspace is still closed in the region, but Defence Minister Judith Collins said the deployment was part of New Zealand's contingency plans. "Airspace in Israel and Iran remains heavily restricted, which means getting people out by aircraft is not yet possible, but by positioning an aircraft, and defence and foreign affairs personnel in the region, we may be able to do more when airspace reopens," she said. The government was also in discussions with commercial airlines to see what they could do to assist, although it was uncertain when airspace would reopen. Defence Minister Judith Collins. Photo: RNZ / Calvin Samuel Foreign affairs minister Winston Peters said New Zealanders should do everything they can to leave now, if they can find a safe route. "We know it will not be safe for everyone to leave Iran or Israel, and many people may not have access to transport or fuel supplies," he said. "If you are in this situation, you should shelter in place, follow appropriate advice from local authorities and stay in touch with family and friends where possible." Peters re-iterated New Zealand's call for diplomacy and dialogue. "Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying and it is critical further escalation is avoided," he said. "New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. "We urge all parties to return to talks. Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action." It will take a few days for the Hercules to reach the region. New Zealanders in Iran and Israel needing urgent consular assistance should call the Ministry's Emergency Consular Call Centre on +64 99 20 20 20. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.