National MPs briefed two days before pay equity announcement
The National Party leadership briefed its MPs two days in advance of the government's announcement to overhaul the pay equity system that makes it tougher for women to lodge claims.
While the party caucus was meeting at 10am on Tuesday - an hour before Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden revealed the pay equity changes - Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis considered it significant enough to give its MPs more warning.
The pay equity reforms would have inevitably raised questions with MPs about how to sell the legislative change, particularly to women voters, and how to answer media questions about the rationale behind the decision-making.
National has been under fire for the changes, that will generate savings to the tune of billions of dollars, and help plug a big hole in the Budget to be released in two weeks' time on May 22.
Speaking to reporters at Parliament this afternoon, Willis confirmed the Sunday briefing, and said officials had warned ministers of "legal risks" if the government had talked about its intentions to make changes to pay equity laws ahead of the new legislation being passed.
The risks were associated with "the fact there were already claims being progressed, and due to the impact that could have both on bargaining behaviour and the initiation of new claims," she said.
On becoming Finance Minister in late 2023, Willis said she discovered the full forecast cost of pay equity claims.
"That number blew my mind... it seemed disproportionate to what I thought Parliament had envisaged when it passed the Pay Equity Act in 2020.
"I was advised that one of the factors that had led to an escalation in those costs was a decision by the previous Cabinet that they would indicate that they would fully meet the costs of claims made by non-government employers, where those employers were government-funded.
"And the impact of that was that it affected the bargaining approach of those employers, because essentially, they knew the government was paying the cheque."
At that time Willis said the government was not putting aside funding contingencies, it had been put in forecasts "but not fully disclosed to the public what those figures were".
As a result, in April last year a paper went to Cabinet that was intended to address the issue of non-government employers' pay equity issues being funded by the taxpayer.
She said that was the first time Cabinet considered pay equity changes and that led to a Cabinet strategy committee being set up in December.
"It was at that time Cabinet expressed a preference that we should deal with the underlying issues and amend the law.
"It was an issue we explored over a number of months and ultimately we have made decisions coming out of a strategy meeting in December, and we took those decisions in due course."
Willis said in March - two months ago - Cabinet signed off on the pay equity reforms announced this week.
She defended the complete secrecy surrounding the government's tightening of the regime designed to help women get fair pay.
The decision to not produce a regulatory impact statement ahead of the law passing through urgency this week came down to the risk of it making its way into the public domain.
"Once we had made the decision that we would amend the Act, we were aware that there were significant risks that if that information entered the public domain, then that could affect bargaining behaviour and legal behaviour. So we wanted to make sure that we progressed it rapidly," Willis said.
Asked whether ACT had strong-armed National on going further on pay equity changes, Willis said: "not at all".
"For a number of months it was becoming clear to me that the way the pay equity scheme had developed had departed from its original, I think, very important intent, which was to correct for gender-based discrimination.
"That is a very important goal. But it had become clear that other market-based factors had entered bargaining, that the incentives on some of the parties in those claims weren't fully aligned, that the costs had escalated well beyond what people had originally envisaged, and it was clear that those issues would require addressing in some way."
In April last year, the government changed the framework that "provided guidance about the circumstances in which government would pay for the cost of claims against private sector employers".
"Our view was that the taxpayer has an obligation where the government employs someone that if they have discriminated against them, then yes, the government should pay for the settlement of that claim, but where it came to providers in the private sector, we believed the issues were more nuanced, and we were also concerned that, of course, the government wasn't at that bargaining table, so we weren't in a position to test the claims.
"The advice that we'd had from officials was that they were very concerned with the way the process had evolved," Willis said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
18 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Secondary teachers union rejects pay offer
The secondary teachers union has rejected a pay offer of one percent a year for three years. RNZ understands it is one of the lowest offers ever made to secondary teachers. The offer to members of the Post Primary Teachers Association amounts to a three percent pay rise over three years. That is well below the 14.5 percent over three years won through arbitration in 2023 and the average 10 percent over three years the union's members grudgingly accepted in 2019. Both of those settlements also included lump sum payments. The government's offer this year also sought to increase the number of days outside term time that schools can require teachers to come to work from 10 to 20 each year. The Public Service Commissioner, Sir Brian Roche, was overseeing this year's negotiations. In May he announced he would retain the responsibility usually delegated to the Education Ministry. "My rationale for this decision is influenced by the wider objective of overseeing collective bargaining and managing fiscal pressures across the public sector," he said at the time. Sir Brian was disappointed the PPTA had rejected the pay offer and urged the union to reconsider. He said the offer was carefully crafted to recognise the contribution teachers make while ensuring it was affordable for taxpayers in a difficult economic times. "The offer on the table represented a 3 percent increase over three years, on top of annual pay progression of between 4.5 percent and 7.5 percent," he said. "For many secondary teachers, this equates to pay increases between $3100 and $8000 a year, with regular annual progression included. Over three years the offer provides increases of between $1850 to $3123, or between $7275 and $15250 with annual pay progression. "The economic environment and the government's fiscal position are very difficult. Every additional dollar spent must be weighed against what is sustainable and fair to all New Zealanders. "I am open to continued dialogue and am committed to reaching a settlement that supports teachers, students, and our public school system." Post Primary Teachers Association President Chris Abercrombie, told Morning Report, he believed teachers deserved an agreement that reflected their skills. "We've got immense change in our sector right now and we need a qualified suitable workforce to implement that change." Abercrombie said it had been 30 years since they had seen this happen. The Educational Institute Te Riu Roa (NZEI) started negotiation of the primary teachers collective agreement last month.
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
What did Nicola Willis's cost-of-butter meeting with Fonterra actually achieve?
The butter price crisis prompted a high-profile meeting at the Beehive – but global markets, not politicians, are still calling the shots, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. Was the butter meeting a damp squib? Finance minister Nicola Willis says she was surprised by 'the almost breathless excitement' around her Tuesday evening meeting with Fonterra chief executive Miles Hurrell, reflecting a week of coverage perhaps more suited to a major sporting event than a wonky meeting about dairy economics. The Post dubbed it 'the butter meeting heard round the country' while news sites ran red breaking news banners as Hurrell and Willis sat down to talk. With 500g blocks of butter topping $11 in some supermarkets, the stakes, at least symbolically, were high. Willis said the conversation covered many topics, but she did ask Hurrell to clarify how butter is priced and why New Zealanders often pay more than overseas consumers. The main outcome, according to the Herald's Thomas Coughlan? A suggestion that Hurrell will publicly explain the breakdown of butter pricing later this week. 'He was so good at communicating about [butter prices], I have encouraged him to provide that information to New Zealanders,' Willis said. Labour smells spin The political optics of the meeting have raised eyebrows, particularly given Willis's own six-year stint in senior roles at Fonterra, reports Bridie Witton in Stuff. Labour's finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds questioned whether the meeting was more about performance than policy, arguing Willis should already understand how butter is priced. Willis pushed back, saying she worked in government relations and environmental strategy – not pricing – and refused to 'pre-judge' Fonterra's explanations. Her office also noted she meets with the dairy giant regularly, and the discussion this week wasn't solely about butter. Still, the intense buildup and media framing gave the impression of a high-level intervention, when in fact the levers to influence pricing remain limited. 'The lesson here is that performance politics doesn't work,' Newstalk ZB's Heather du Plessis-Allan said. 'In fact … it runs the risk of backfiring, which is exactly what's happening here.' So why is butter so expensive? As Blayne Slabbert explains in The Press (paywalled), 95% of our dairy products are exported and domestic prices reflect what those products earn overseas – a model known as export parity pricing. Recent Stats NZ data shows butter prices, driven by the global market, have surged 46.5% in a year, reaching an average of $8.60 per 500g. While world dairy prices dipped slightly in July, they remain far above historical levels. Global supply is tight, and demand – especially in China and Southeast Asia – continues to climb. 'You get to the situation we're in now where butter is at extraordinary heights and everyone wants their butter on toast,' High Ground Dairy consultant Stu Davison tells Newstalk ZB's Michael Sergel. 'We don't see it running right back to where we were five years ago.' That international appetite for grass-fed butter benefits our farmers and boosts export revenues, but leaves local consumers squeezed at the checkout. A changing role for Fonterra As butter becomes a lightning rod for public frustration at the cost of groceries, Fonterra may soon exit the retail fray altogether. The co-operative plans to sell off consumer-facing brands like Anchor and Mainland, focusing instead on its business-to-business operations. Writing in The Conversation, agribusiness professors Alan Renwick and David Dean say the move makes commercial sense. While some fear an overseas owner could lead to higher prices for consumers, they think it could help disrupt the current 'cosy' relationship between Fonterra and the supermarkets – potentially even bringing prices down. In the Herald, Clive Elliott, a barrister specialising in intellectual property, argues that the sell-off is a strategic error. 'Our prosperity and ability to remain a first-world economy depends on our ability to add value,' Elliott warns, arguing Fonterra is abandoning decades of brand equity. Regardless of who ends up owning the dairy brands, the butter pricing system is unlikely to shift dramatically. For now, New Zealanders will have to settle for an unsatisfying explanation rather than meaningfully lower costs.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Healthworkers want politicians to waive private healthcare while in office
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins. Photo: RNZ A group of healthworkers - including specialists, GPs, nurses and paramedics - have signed an open letter to MPs asking them to waive private healthcare during their time in office. Politicians making critical decisions about the public health system system - to cut funding, defer maintenance, or implement restructures - should not be allowed to "insulate" themselves against the consequences, they write. Their prescription? All MPs - and the families of Cabinet ministers - should rely on the public system. The group's spokesperson, Northland cardiologist Marcus Lee, said the public deserved leaders who were so committed to public healthcare that they were willing to stake their family's wellbeing on it. "Essentially we want fair and transparent leadership with integrity. We want people who have skin in the game." The test was whether politicians were "comfortable and confident" enough to rely on the public health system for their families, he said. "If it's good for them, it's good for us. If it's not good enough for them, it shouldn't be good enough for anyone." Some healthworkers say politicians making critical decisions about the public health system system - to cut funding, defer maintenance, or implement restructures - should not be allowed to "insulate" themselves against the consequences. Photo: RNZ The letter asks MPs to consider questions like: Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not believe having private health insurance meant he was out of touch with the problems besetting the public system . "I think we're well aware of the challenges in the healthcare system, which is why we've put a record amount of investment in," he said. "We inherited again a botched merger that just created a layer of bureaucracy and we've put the money in, we're hiring more people, we've got clarity on the targets. "We're starting to see some stabilisation of those targets and in some cases improvements on those health targets. "But we now need a high performing Health NZ, and that's what we're fixated on." Prime Minister Christopher Luxon did not believe having private health insurance meant he was out of touch. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Labour's health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall said MPs with private health insurance were "betting their own money against the public system". "Ministers of Health should place a bet on the public health system succeeding and meeting New Zealanders' needs. Having private health insurance is a sign that you're not willing to place that bet." Labour's health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall says MPs with private health insurance are "betting their own money against the public system". Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins - a former health minister himself - took a less hard-line approach. "I got health insurance 20 or 30 years ago as a union membership benefit and I've kept it since then, although I'm fortunate I haven't really had to use it. "I'm not going to begrudge people who have it, but I want to make sure that if you haven't, you still get the standard of care you deserve." Health Minister Simeon Brown said he did not have private health insurance, but he would not impose that choice on anyone else. "Ultimately there's a large number of New Zealanders who use health insurance, that's a fantastic part of our health system, and ultimately people make individual choices." Brown said his focus was on timely access to quality healthcare for New Zealanders, which included making better use of the private sector. "We will work with private hospitals to unlock capacity, publicly funded [patients] but in private hospitals to speed up access." Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Education Minister Erica Stanford both have private health insurance. Finance Minister Nicola Willis (L) says she has private health insurance but Health Minister Simeon Brown says he doesn't. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey does not, saying he is "happy using the public health system". Other National MPs were more coy. Minister of Climate Change, Energy, Local Government and Revenue, Simon Watts: "I won't answer that, it's a personal question." Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, Disability Issues, Social Development and Employment, Louise Upston: "That's not a question in the public interest." Bay of Plenty MP Tom Rutherford: "I'm not interested in talking about that. It's not necessary for people to know - I don't go out into the general street and ask people about their health insurance." Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March said it was "quite rich" to see politicians not being worried about the state of the public healthcare system, when they had the means to pay for private insurance or private care . "That is why we are really concerned with the government's flirtation with privatising more of our public healthcare system, which will ultimately see our poorest less able to access basic healthcare." For some Labour MPs, it was a matter of principle. Kelston MP Carmel Sepuloni: "I believe as politicians if we're going to be working to ensure the healthcare system works for everyone, we should be reliant on it too." Nelson MP Rachel Boyack: "My father was a public health chief executive so I've always had a strong belief in the public health system, and that the health system should be available to all New Zealanders, and that includes me as an MP." Mt Albert MP Helen White could understand why some people opted to have it, but it was not for her: "I just think that I should live by my principles. Also I probably couldn't afford it. I know I'm on a decent salary, but it's a lot of money." Mt Albert MP Helen White says she probably couldn't afford health insurance. Photo: RNZ / Simon Rogers Labour MP Ginnie Andersen said health insurance was not in her budget: "By the time I pay my mortgage and my insurance and my rates and feed my children." ACT Party leader David Seymour, who is also the Associate Health Minister, said the healthworkers made "an interesting argument" - but in his view, MPs should come from a broad range of backgrounds. "I don't think you should have to fit into a sort of ideological straight-jacket to do that." The healthworkers behind the letter said MPs who refused to give up their private safety net would be revealing "exactly what they really think about our healthcare system". "We'll be watching to see who has the courage to put their family where their policies are." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
