Latest news with #EqualPayAmendmentBill
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.
Scoop
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Pay Equity Puzzle: Can We Compare Effort, Skill And Risk Between Different Industries?
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. Gemma Piercy, Lecturer, Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Waikato; Bill Cochrane, Senior Lecture in Sociology and Social Policy, University of Waikato, and Suzette Dyer, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, University of Waikato 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.
