Marilyn Waring: Why I convened the people's select committee on pay equity
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
MBIE warns it will need 100-300 extra staff to review current laws under Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could come at a cost, experts warn. Photo: RNZ Officials have warned David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could be much more expensive than previous estimates suggested, and could lead to business uncertainty, slowing economic growth. Seymour is playing down the concerns, saying AI will solve some of those problems and the officials have not accounted for some aspects of the bill he expects will speed up government processes. The documents released under the Official Information Act show Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials feared $50 million to $60m a year in costs to government departments would be on the low end of estimates. They also believed the bill would slow the passage of legislation by two to four weeks, and make the business environment more uncertain, slowing economic growth. Like other departments and in line with the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by the Ministry for Regulation, MBIE also expressed "concerns about the proposals outlined and their ability to support genuine improvement in regulatory quality", and said there were other, better options for achieving the bill's aims. In feedback ahead of last week's select committee hearings, MBIE officials particularly expressed concern over the additional costs the bill would impose, saying up to three full-time staff would be needed for each of the 95 laws the ministry is responsible for, costing the ministry up to $34.2m over multiple years. "This translates to 95 - 285 FTE in total ($11.4 to $34.2 million). The range in estimates reflects the differences in size and complexity between different pieces of legislation - larger Acts such as the Building Act 2004 would take significantly more resources to review than smaller legislation." As an example, the Building Act includes 680 sections and has 34 pieces of secondary legislation. "It is very roughly estimated that a dedicated team of 6-8 FTE (full time employees) with a manager may be required in order to undertake the consistency reviews and provide advice to the Minister on whether departures are justified." This figure does not include new legislation and regulations, which are covered by the RSB. MBIE estimated an additional full-time employee would be needed for each new bill the government asks the ministry to write, with the requirements of the Regulatory Standards Bill adding "an additional 2-4 weeks into the legislative process". "As an indication, MBIE has supported the passage of 6 Acts so far in 2024/25," the advice stated. "It is highly unlikely that we could meet these additional costs within baseline as suggested within the Cabinet paper without significant impacts on MBIE's ability to deliver Ministers' policy priorities." The figures also do not include the estimated 450 to 550 pieces of existing secondary legislation (regulations) the ministry also oversees - which had originally been included in the RSB's scope and could still be added at a later date. Questioned about the figures, MBIE said they were high-level estimates and could yet change. "The advice provided high level estimates with a range of costs and timeframes based on the work that might be required as a result of the Bill. We would need to revise and update these estimates when the Bill is passed." Ministry of Innovation, Business and Employment's Wellington office building. Photo: Google Maps Street View MBIE's advice also quoted from the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by Seymour's Regulations Ministry an estimated annual cost to departments of "$50m-$60m per year", saying this was likely on the lower end. "As per previous MBIE advice, MBIE considers that the assumptions made by the Ministry for Regulation in developing that estimate make it a lower bound. In regulatory-heavy portfolios, MBIE estimates that up to 15 percent of the policy resource will need to be engaged in this work." The documents show MBIE offered to help the Regulations Ministry come up with a more accurate accounting. "We offered to work with the Ministry to better cost the work that would be involved in undertaking consistency reviews. In the 48 hour timeframe for comment, it was not possible to complete robust analysis on agency impact but our assessment is this [is] substantial for agencies with a significant volume of regulatory stock such as MBIE". However, the publicly available Regulatory Impact Statement predicted the bill would cost $18m annually across the whole of government. RNZ has sought clarification from MBIE about where the $50m to $60m figure came from, and whether it was still current. Questioned about the costs, Seymour said the officials did not seem to be accounting for the fact the range of considerations in the RSB were narrower than already required under the Cabinet Manual, nor that it would replace most of the work done to produce Regulatory Impact Statements. "It's disappointing that MBIE officials think it's too hard to consider the impacts of their regulations on Kiwis," he said. "It says more about their productivity and attitude towards Kiwis than the Bill. Businesses who have to comply with their rules and regulations are constantly innovating and improving their processes, why can't these officials? "This isn't a zero-sum game. Kiwis all over the country are faced with endless costs caused by overzealous bureaucrats who aren't accountable. By preventing more bad regulations, and getting rid of pointless old ones, we'll save the country far more money than these bureaucrats could ever spend." He suggested AI could also help. "Look at the pace of development of AI, the cost estimates were based on a human reading through every piece of legislation, I suspect that actually we'll be able to do it much faster than we expected because of AI," he said. "Could it change the way that a government department scans the legislation it's responsible for to pick out things that might be consistent or inconsistent with a peer to principles? That's already here." He pushed back when asked if AI could be trusted to do that work. "I don't think the issue is that you're going to trust it. I think the issue is that you're going to use it to speed up the work that humans are ultimately trusted for." The advice shows MBIE was also concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence, because the principles in it were likely to change under a future government. "Because some of the principles in the Bill are viewed as novel or contentious, as opposed to widely accepted, there is a risk to the durability of the principles, and potentially the Bill as a whole. "Future legislation, designed to be consistent with novel principles, may also take on characteristics that are seen as unorthodox, and eventually be subject to regulatory churn." MBIE is concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence. Photo: Yiting Lin / RNZ Emails between officials show the ministry raised with Immigration Minister Erica Stanford that the bill would make the regulatory environment less predictable, "which can constrain business' commitment to investment and growth". RNZ has sought comment from Seymour about the effect on business confidence. The Green Party's regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez said the ministry's cost estimates were highly concerning, saying officials would be focused on "doing make-work jobs just to comply with the extremist provisions of the Regulatory Standards Bill". He was also concerned the bill would have a chilling effect on regulations "that protect people and planet". "Instead of the money going to frontline public services, it's just going to be wasted on the cost of basically pursuing one person's ideological vanity project." He said Seymour's explanations sounded like "total BS", saying it was "desperation". He pointed to a study from the United Kingdom which suggested AI could save public servants two weeks in a 52-week year, less than 5 percent. "AI is quite good for doing the sort of low-level administrative tasks and simplifying those things, but the level of nuanced work of interpreting secondary legislation and how it applies to a principles framework that, again, is like created by human beings - it's not really the sort of thing that could easily be automated," Hernandez said. "Seymour is spinning." He said he agreed with the analysis on the bill impacting business confidence, and pushed back on suggestions the current opposition repealing the bill could be partly to blame for it - saying it was not just the opposition showing signs of not supporting it. "The coalition itself is showing cracks around the seams around that, so if Seymour can't even get the full unequivocal support of his colleagues in cabinet, then that goes to show how extreme this bill is." Green Party regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith The documents also showed significant concern from MBIE about an earlier version of the RSB the ministries were asked to provide feedback on, which would have required all legislation and regulations to be reviewed at least once every decade. This requirement was removed by Cabinet before the bill was introduced to Parliament. An email in the documents showed concerns about the 10-yearly reviews was widespread. "David will address the resourcing issue in the meeting, as it has been raised by every agency and several ministers," the email said. Questioned about the prospect of changes to the bill following the select committee process, Seymour used the matter as an example of changes already made. "People said 'oh, that'll be too much work for the department', we said 'well, if it's too much work for the government to read all of its laws in 10 years, imagine the poor buggers who have to follow these laws out there anyway'. We said 'okay, we'll take the 10 year thing out, take pressure off that'. That's the kind of change they've already made." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Ministry feared costs of $60m a year to review laws under Regulatory Standards Bill
David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could come at a cost, experts warn. Photo: RNZ Officials have warned David Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill could be much more expensive than previous estimates suggested, and could lead to business uncertainty, slowing economic growth. Seymour is playing down the concerns, saying AI will solve some of those problems and the officials have not accounted for some aspects of the bill he expects will speed up government processes. The documents released under the Official Information Act show Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials feared $50 million to $60m a year in costs to government departments would be on the low end of estimates. They also believed the bill would slow the passage of legislation by two to four weeks, and make the business environment more uncertain, slowing economic growth. Like other departments and in line with the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by the Ministry for Regulation, MBIE also expressed "concerns about the proposals outlined and their ability to support genuine improvement in regulatory quality", and said there were other, better options for achieving the bill's aims. In feedback ahead of last week's select committee hearings, MBIE officials particularly expressed concern over the additional costs the bill would impose, saying up to three full-time staff would be needed for each of the 95 laws the ministry is responsible for, costing the ministry up to $34.2m over multiple years. "This translates to 95 - 285 FTE in total ($11.4 to $34.2 million). The range in estimates reflects the differences in size and complexity between different pieces of legislation - larger Acts such as the Building Act 2004 would take significantly more resources to review than smaller legislation." As an example, the Building Act includes 680 sections and has 34 pieces of secondary legislation. "It is very roughly estimated that a dedicated team of 6-8 FTE (full time employees) with a manager may be required in order to undertake the consistency reviews and provide advice to the Minister on whether departures are justified." This figure does not include new legislation and regulations, which are covered by the RSB. MBIE estimated an additional full-time employee would be needed for each new bill the government asks the ministry to write, with the requirements of the Regulatory Standards Bill adding "an additional 2-4 weeks into the legislative process". "As an indication, MBIE has supported the passage of 6 Acts so far in 2024/25," the advice stated. "It is highly unlikely that we could meet these additional costs within baseline as suggested within the Cabinet paper without significant impacts on MBIE's ability to deliver Ministers' policy priorities." The figures also do not include the estimated 450 to 550 pieces of existing secondary legislation (regulations) the ministry also oversees - which had originally been included in the RSB's scope and could still be added at a later date. Questioned about the figures, MBIE said they were high-level estimates and could yet change. "The advice provided high level estimates with a range of costs and timeframes based on the work that might be required as a result of the Bill. We would need to revise and update these estimates when the Bill is passed." Ministry of Innovation, Business and Employment's Wellington office building. Photo: Google Maps Street View MBIE's advice also quoted from the Regulatory Impact Statement prepared by Seymour's Regulations Ministry an estimated annual cost to departments of "$50m-$60m per year", saying this was likely on the lower end. "As per previous MBIE advice, MBIE considers that the assumptions made by the Ministry for Regulation in developing that estimate make it a lower bound. In regulatory-heavy portfolios, MBIE estimates that up to 15 percent of the policy resource will need to be engaged in this work." The documents show MBIE offered to help the Regulations Ministry come up with a more accurate accounting. "We offered to work with the Ministry to better cost the work that would be involved in undertaking consistency reviews. In the 48 hour timeframe for comment, it was not possible to complete robust analysis on agency impact but our assessment is this [is] substantial for agencies with a significant volume of regulatory stock such as MBIE". However, the publicly available Regulatory Impact Statement predicted the bill would cost $18m annually across the whole of government. RNZ has sought clarification from MBIE about where the $50m to $60m figure came from, and whether it was still current. Questioned about the costs, Seymour said the officials did not seem to be accounting for the fact the range of considerations in the RSB were narrower than already required under the Cabinet Manual, nor that it would replace most of the work done to produce Regulatory Impact Statements. "It's disappointing that MBIE officials think it's too hard to consider the impacts of their regulations on Kiwis," he said. "It says more about their productivity and attitude towards Kiwis than the Bill. Businesses who have to comply with their rules and regulations are constantly innovating and improving their processes, why can't these officials? "This isn't a zero-sum game. Kiwis all over the country are faced with endless costs caused by overzealous bureaucrats who aren't accountable. By preventing more bad regulations, and getting rid of pointless old ones, we'll save the country far more money than these bureaucrats could ever spend." He suggested AI could also help. "Look at the pace of development of AI, the cost estimates were based on a human reading through every piece of legislation, I suspect that actually we'll be able to do it much faster than we expected because of AI," he said. "Could it change the way that a government department scans the legislation it's responsible for to pick out things that might be consistent or inconsistent with a peer to principles? That's already here." He pushed back when asked if AI could be trusted to do that work. "I don't think the issue is that you're going to trust it. I think the issue is that you're going to use it to speed up the work that humans are ultimately trusted for." The advice shows MBIE was also concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence, because the principles in it were likely to change under a future government. "Because some of the principles in the Bill are viewed as novel or contentious, as opposed to widely accepted, there is a risk to the durability of the principles, and potentially the Bill as a whole. "Future legislation, designed to be consistent with novel principles, may also take on characteristics that are seen as unorthodox, and eventually be subject to regulatory churn." MBIE is concerned about the effect of the RSB on business confidence. Photo: Yiting Lin / RNZ Emails between officials show the ministry raised with Immigration Minister Erica Stanford that the bill would make the regulatory environment less predictable, "which can constrain business' commitment to investment and growth". RNZ has sought comment from Seymour about the effect on business confidence. The Green Party's regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez said the ministry's cost estimates were highly concerning, saying officials would be focused on "doing make-work jobs just to comply with the extremist provisions of the Regulatory Standards Bill". He was also concerned the bill would have a chilling effect on regulations "that protect people and planet". "Instead of the money going to frontline public services, it's just going to be wasted on the cost of basically pursuing one person's ideological vanity project." He said Seymour's explanations sounded like "total BS", saying it was "desperation". He pointed to a study from the United Kingdom which suggested AI could save public servants two weeks in a 52-week year, less than 5 percent. "AI is quite good for doing the sort of low-level administrative tasks and simplifying those things, but the level of nuanced work of interpreting secondary legislation and how it applies to a principles framework that, again, is like created by human beings - it's not really the sort of thing that could easily be automated," Hernandez said. "Seymour is spinning." He said he agreed with the analysis on the bill impacting business confidence, and pushed back on suggestions the current opposition repealing the bill could be partly to blame for it - saying it was not just the opposition showing signs of not supporting it. "The coalition itself is showing cracks around the seams around that, so if Seymour can't even get the full unequivocal support of his colleagues in cabinet, then that goes to show how extreme this bill is." Green Party regulations spokesperson Francisco Hernandez. Photo: VNP / Phil Smith The documents also showed significant concern from MBIE about an earlier version of the RSB the ministries were asked to provide feedback on, which would have required all legislation and regulations to be reviewed at least once every decade. This requirement was removed by Cabinet before the bill was introduced to Parliament. An email in the documents showed concerns about the 10-yearly reviews was widespread. "David will address the resourcing issue in the meeting, as it has been raised by every agency and several ministers," the email said. Questioned about the prospect of changes to the bill following the select committee process, Seymour used the matter as an example of changes already made. "People said 'oh, that'll be too much work for the department', we said 'well, if it's too much work for the government to read all of its laws in 10 years, imagine the poor buggers who have to follow these laws out there anyway'. We said 'okay, we'll take the 10 year thing out, take pressure off that'. That's the kind of change they've already made." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Otago Daily Times
17 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
'Pricey, pointless' council work halted ahead of RMA overhaul
By Craig McCulloch of RNZ The government is putting the brakes on "pricey, pointless" council planning work ahead of its major shake-up of resource management laws. Speaking in Christchurch today, RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop described the move as a "kind intervention" designed to relieve pressure on councils' resources. Many councils were still spending time and money reviewing plans under the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) - even though the entire regime would be replaced by 2027, he said. "There is little point in progressing long and costly hearings on a plan change that will be incompatible with the new planning system, or probably won't even be complete by the time the new system is switched on," Bishop told the Local Government NZ conference. The government would suspend the requirement on councils to review plans every 10 years, and prevent new plan changes from being notified - unless they met certain exemptions, such as for natural hazard management or Treaty settlements. Councils would also be required to withdraw proposed plan changes that had yet to reach the hearing stage. Bishop said the decision had been made after careful consideration and a recommendation from an expert advisory group. "The government's intention is that stopping plan requirements for councils will enable them to focus on critical work to prepare to transition to the new system." 'Time for excuses is over' Bishop framed the move in the context of "serious questions" about the performance of councils but acknowledged that central government had historically not made their job easy. He said the coalition was now doing its bit by providing more financing and funding tools and a simpler planning system. "We are getting our house in order. It's time you sorted yours out," he told councils. Bishop revived the coalition's call for councils to tighten their belts and focus their priorities on housing and infrastructure. "It's okay to build a local road without spending hundreds of thousands on artworks," he said. "Not everything you do has to be an architectural masterpiece. "The only awards your projects should be winning are for cost-efficiency and effectiveness." In his speech, Bishop also gave a nod to recent discussion about the possibility of scrapping regional councils - given the RMA changes would remove many of their existing jobs. "We're having a look at the functions we will need in the new system. Nothing is off the table, but I am mindful of the scale and pace of change that we're undertaking already." The government intends to introduce its new legislation by the end of this year, to be passed next year and then brought into force in 2027. "The time for excuses is over," Bishop told the audience. "The culture of 'yes' starts now."
