Latest news with #EqualPayAmendmentAct
NZ Herald
11 hours ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
The real cost of Government retreat on gender equity
Dellwyn Stuart is critical of the Government for halting pay equity claims and gutting the Equal Pay Amendment Act. Photo / Marty Melville There's a reason The Emperor's New Clothes is an enduring story. It's not just a children's tale – it's a sharp allegory for political vanity, wilful blindness and the cost of silence. In the story, the emperor is convinced to parade through town in invisible garments, woven only for
Otago Daily Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
A tale of two stories — the new Equal Pay Amendment Act
Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden. PHOTO: RNZ It is difficult, if not impossible to see how the recently passed Equal Pay Amendment Act could be all about empowering women as allegedly claimed by the minister in charge. The explanation note to the Bill claims its purpose "is to achieve a better regulatory framework for parties to a pay equity claim to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation". One may ask: better for who? The changed-for-the-better framework includes such things as a robust process for raising claims, clarity on the appropriateness of comparators to assess sex-based under-remuneration, sustainability for employers to meet their obligations and the right incentives to encourage parties to resolve pay equity claims. Possibly all fair enough at face value, although the tilt at sustainability for employers is a bit of a giveaway. The same explanatory note goes on to include such things as increasing the threshold for raising a pay equity claim, greater evidentiary burden on claimants, increased opportunity for employers to opt out and an obligatory assessment of market factors. Clearly a strong shift in sentiment towards the employer. This factor is emphasised by an expressed intention of the legislation to ensure a robust process to ensure appropriate scoping of claims and comparators so that employers can meet their obligations "in a manner that is sustainable". Coupled with the fact that the legislation strikes out numerous pay equity claims in the pipeline and, according to the soon-to-be deputy prime minister, has created savings on a scale to "save" the upcoming Budget. It is not difficult to argue that the story line of support for the legislation is a far cry from reality and dresses the Act as something it is not. As Sir Ian Taylor so eloquently points out (ODT 12.5.25), if women are empowered by the legislation, it is certainly not those in the lower-paid but essential services he describes. That the government is empowered to pass the legislation under urgency is not at issue. What is at issue is the increasing use of urgency by successive governments to push through legislation in furtherance of their agendas, walking over, not around, due process. It is of concern that the current government, approaching the halfway mark of its three years in office, has now utilised urgency 23 times. This approaches the last government's record 28 times during its term in office. One could argue that resorting to urgency on this scale is both unwarranted and a direct assault on necessary due process under our rules-based system of government. This is a constitutional matter, among a number which we face in the country at this time, and requires serious, thoughtful and non-partisan consideration. Something that should be driven by the public at large to encompass our growing maturity and diversity. The Westminster system of democracy so often lauded by segments of the body politic embodies not one but two deliberating bodies, as does our next-door neighbour's. Restoration of this element would fetter such ready resort to the adoption of urgency by successive governments simply to undo the legislative programme of its predecessors. • Noel O'Malley is a Balclutha lawyer and is a past president of the Otago District Law Society.
Scoop
19-05-2025
- Health
- Scoop
Govt Risks Hospice Care By Cutting Women's Pay
The Government's decision to cut women's pay could result in an exodus of palliative care nurses from the profession. 'Hospice nurses were just weeks away from having their years-long pay equity claim settled when the Government cruelly cut women's pay equity for their Budget,' Labour health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall said. 'These are nurses who care for people at the end of their lives. They have been fighting for years for the dignity of equal pay with their hospital colleagues, only for the Government to change the rules on them at the last minute and scrap their claim. 'It's not just cruel, it's incredibly short-sighted. Hospices are struggling to recruit and retain nurses on lower pay than their hospital counterparts, and have to pay them out of a diminishing amount of funding from the Government, grants and fundraising. 'Hospice New Zealand has warned it needs a $16 million boost from the Government just to keep the lights on. Without pay equity or the money to pay nurses what they deserve, it will be harder to provide the care New Zealanders need at the end of their lives. 'This Government is choosing tax cuts for landlords and tobacco companies over pay raises for funding essential care. It's short-sighted, unfair, and plain wrong,' Ayesha Verrall said. Hospice nurses and healthcare assistants had one of the 13 funded-sector health claims that the Government abolished when it passed the Equal Pay Amendment Act.
Otago Daily Times
16-05-2025
- Business
- Otago Daily Times
Pay equity changes under intense scrutiny
The government's recent reforms of pay equity legislation have certainly stirred up a hornets' nest. It has defended the rushing through of these reforms to provide legal certainty on claims involving women's pay. However, opponents have claimed it is to achieve crucial savings as Budget day looms. David Seymour claims that Brooke van Velden has "saved the Budget" for the government. Ms Van Velden's Cabinet paper claims settlements under the current regime were costing the government $1.55 billion a year. The changes will discontinue 33 pay equity claims involving hundreds of thousands of workers. So, let us have a look at the history of the legislation and the changes proposed. How did pay equity come about? Kristine Bartlett was an aged care worker for Terranova Homes. In 2012 she brought a claim through E Tū that she had been on low pay for 20 years because her work in aged care was predominantly performed by women. The case went to the Supreme Court, with the court agreeing that anyone who does "women's work" can make a pay equity claim under the Equal Pay Act. The government agreed to a $2b settlement and to fund 20%-40% pay increases for care workers over the following five years. A joint working group with unions, businesses and officials was established to agree on a set of pay equity principles. The Equal Pay Amendment Act was passed in 2020. What was the process? The legislation required employers to make sure there was no pay differentiation on the basis of sex where work was predominantly performed by female employees. The legislation looked at factors such as same or substantially similar skills; responsibility; experience and work under the same or substantially similar conditions, with the same or substantially similar degrees of effort. Where an employee did not think this obligation was being met, they could raise a pay equity claim. The claim would be considered arguable if it related to work that was predominantly performed by female employees and the work was currently undervalued or had historically been undervalued. The parties were then required to undertake an assessment to determine whether the work was undervalued on the basis of sex. That analysis included an assessment of the nature of the work to which the claim related; the nature of comparators, including skills, responsibilities, conditions of work, degree of effort, level of experience and any other relevant features, together with the terms and conditions of employment. If undervaluation was established, the parties were required to settle the claim by agreeing on remuneration that did not differentiate on the basis of sex. While the government has claimed that the system was unworkable, the legislation provided for assistance by way of Mediation Services, Employment Relations Authority facilitation and, ultimately, determination by the Employment Relations Authority. So, what are the changes? The changes announced, after being pushed through under urgency, result in 33 claims having to start again. This retrospective implementation of the amendments has been highly criticised. The changes include: — raising the threshold of "predominantly performed by female employees" from 60% to 70% and requiring that this has been the case for at least 10 consecutive years; — restating the purpose of the legislation as providing a process that facilitates the resolution of pay equity claims where there is evidence of systemic sex-based undervaluation of work that is predominantly performed by female employees; — amending the threshold for raising a claim from "is arguable" to "has merit"; — employers may opt out of a multi-employer claim without having to provide reasons based on reasonable grounds for doing so. This decision cannot be challenged; — introducing a hierarchy of comparators and adding more prescription to comparison methodology; — providing for phasing of pay equity settlements; — removing the provision for the Employment Relations Authority to award back pay; — introducing a 10-year limit on claims being reintroduced relating to the same employees or workforce. Public vs private sector Business New Zealand chief executive Katherine Rich has agreed changes were needed and that the previous claims were creating large anomalies between public and private sectors. "Increases in public health sector remuneration have created difficulties in the private sector where they can't afford those pay rates. "Where those private sector employers receive government funding for some services, it is not enough to cover the contracted services they provide. As a result, they are losing staff, suffering from industrial action and face problems in delivering their contracted work." In one LinkedIn post Ms van Velden stated: "Pay equity is also here to stay. This is the concept that men and women doing different jobs of the same value should be paid the same. This is different from equal pay and more subjective. Because it's more subjective, there needs to be a system to figure out value and undervaluation, and whether this undervaluation is because of discrimination based on sex." Whether the changes are designed to save the Budget for the government or to provide legal certainty on claims involving women's pay, the opposing cry that this is "a war on women" is not likely to quieten any time soon. — John Farrow is a partner with Anderson Lloyd, specialising in employment law. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not purport to be specific legal or professional advice.
Scoop
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Lack Of Debate Fans Pay Equity Fury
Article – RNZ The government's shock and awe approach to changing the legislation has fanned the flames of anger., for The Detail The opposition, unions and media have all been accused of scaremongering on the pay equity legislation. But the issue's been clouded by the government's actions, which left no time for debate. Dumping 33 pay equity claims and telling underpaid workers to start again was always going to cause fury from those who stood to benefit from the claims – mostly women. But the government's shock and awe approach to changing the legislation has fanned the flames of anger. In a whirlwind 48 hours the law changed – no select committee, public meetings, opportunities for submissions or the usual processes laws go through. It is far from the first time a government has used urgency – but this was fast even by usual urgent standards. The Prime Minister has suggested the opposition, unions and the media have all been scaremongering on the issue. But there has been no time for debate on it, which Newsroom senior political reporter Marc Daalder said did not give people time to discuss its merits. 'I don't think anyone was looking at this as an area for major reform, certainly not immediate reform,' he said. 'It's something that the government hadn't really spent very much time talking about. We know that the [workplace relationships] minister, Brooke van Velden, has been doing a lot of workplace reform and a lot of that has been forecast in the coalition agreements and in public statements that she's made. And she now says this pay equity issue is something that right when she got the job, at the very start in late 2023, she told the Prime Minister she was interested in working on it. 'But it's not something the rest of us, or the public, had really known was on their radar.' The changes to the Equal Pay Amendment Act made last week tighten up parameters for claims, introduce more restrictions and give employers more ways to ignore them. Van Velden said in her announcement that all ministers have been asked to save money, and that is what the move would do. They are substantial savings – billions – and Act leader David Seymour said van Velden had saved the Budget. National has played that aspect down, but it will get a lot of liability off the government books. That has paved the way for commentary that the savings have been made off the backs of women and made it harder for them to access economic justice. No one has lost any money – wages are not being slashed. But the fairness that many women were hoping for has just become that much further away. Daalder says Act and National MPs have now expressed concerns that many of the claims now cancelled were 'basically bogus'. 'Nicola Willis called it [a Trojan horse for] a billion dollar grievance industry by the unions… that yes there are some situations where particular lines of work that are dominated by women have been systemically undervalued due to sexism and misogyny, as compared to types of work dominated by men that require similar skills, qualifications, and levels of work and so forth. 'But that many of the claims that were currently being considered were not that. That they represented pay differentials for reasons other than sexism and misogyny. That's the heart of the argument from the government now … the system was too loose, it was letting people make disingenuous comparisons between professions, and that there are professions that are paid less well not because they are dominated by women but for other reasons.' Also on The Detail on Thursday, Helen Roberts, who is a professor of finance at the University of Otago, talks about the differences between equal pay, pay equity and the gender gap. She said we need to up our game on data gathering from employers so the situation is more transparent – and she uses the Australian example, the statutory body WGEA (Workplace Gender Equality Agency) as an example of what could be done here.
