Use of urgency to upend pay equity scheme decided after PM's meeting with senior ministers
Use of urgency to upend pay equity scheme decided after PM's meeting with senior ministers
Pay equity protesters rally outside Minister Brooke van Velden's electorate office in Auckland in May. Photo / Jason Dorday
New documents reveal the Government's use of urgency to rush through controversial changes to the country's pay equity scheme wasn't decided until after a high-powered meeting between the Prime Minister and senior ministers.
A document dump yesterday from several government agencies provides an insight into the Government's shock decision in May to amend the Equal Pay Act, which ministers claimed created a fiscally unsustainable pay equity scheme as changes saved almost $13 billion over the next four years.
The changes, which stopped 33 live pay equity claims, raised the threshold for claims to be made and limited the job types workforces could use as comparators when arguing inequity.
The amendments announced by Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden had not been publicly forecast, and the Government used urgency to pass the bill through the House, meaning no public consultation was done.
Now, documents released yesterday showed urgency hadn't been raised by officials in the months of preparation through 2024 before potential reform.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
8 hours ago
- 1News
Govt announces foreign visitor charges at popular DOC sites
Foreign visitors will soon need to pay a charge to access some of New Zealand's most famous tourist destinations on conservation land, the Government announced today. It was also announced that concessions would be widened to allow for more business activity on conservation land. The charges announced today would mean foreign tourists visiting Cathedral Cove / Te Whanganui-a-Hei, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Track, and Aoraki Mount Cook would need to pay between $20 and $40 per person. New Zealanders would not be charged for access. Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said foreigners made up 80% of all visitors at the destinations. Conservation Minister Tama Potaka. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT He estimated the charges could make up to $62 million a year in revenue, which would be directly reinvested into those same areas. 'Tourists make a massive contribution to our economy, and no one wants that to change," Potaka said. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said sites that were "truly special" to Kiwis needed to be protected, and said the charges would give the Department of Conservation more support. "But I have heard many times from friends visiting from overseas their shock that they can visit some of the most beautiful places in the world for free." Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. File photo. (Source: Getty) Luxon said it would create more economic opportunities out of underutilised Department of Conservation land. The charge would be similar to the cost of admission for international visitors to the Auckland War Memorial Museum, where an adult currently paid $32 and child, aged between five and 15, paid $16. ADVERTISEMENT Alongside the charges, the Government also announced widening concessions, for businesses to operate on conservation land. Aoraki / Mount Cook along the Hooker Valley Track on a sunny day in the South Island. (Source: "We're going to fix the Conservation Act to unlock more economic activity through concessions – like tourism, agriculture, and infrastructure, in locations where that makes sense," Luxon said "That means more certainty for businesses, less bureaucracy, and much faster decisions, so the businesses that should be operating can get up and running." Luxon said there would still be restrictions to protect the natural environment. "Of course it won't make sense for businesses to be operating on every part of the DOC estate," he said. "But where it does make sense, we need to get to the 'yes' much faster – instead of being bogged down in process and uncertainty." Tourist enjoying views of upper Clinton valley on Milford Track. (Source: Luxon said the current concessions scheme was "totally broken", saying it often took years to obtain or renew, "leaving businesses in a cycle of bureaucratic limbo". 'Outdated rules mean we've got examples of modern e-bike users being turned away from potential touring opportunities because they have to be considered as proper vehicles. "And tourism on the Routeburn is being held up because the trail crosses artificial boundaries, with different rules and different limits."
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
What Officials Said About Pay Equity Changes
Article – RNZ Treasury documents show the pay equity reset was key to meeting the coalition's cost-cutting goals., Political Reporter The minister who ushered through the pay equity changes said any limitations on workers' rights were justified in order to reduce the risks to employers. A document dump from the Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) showed the processes the government went through to change the pay equity framework, and then return contingency funding to the Budget allowances. Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, who introduced the legislation, acknowledged the changes would likely be contentious, but were necessary to meet the government's policy objectives of keeping a pay equity system, while changing the framework for assessing whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government worked on the changes in secret, before announcing the amendment bill in May and passing it under urgency. At the Budget, Finance Minister Nicola Willis revealed the changes had saved $12.8 billion over the forecast period. 'This is justified' – Brooke van Velden The short timeframe to get the bill passed before the Budget meant there had been 'limited testing and analysis' of the policy proposals, and the retrospective provisions in the bill were 'inconsistent' with general principles. MBIE acknowledged the transitional provisions would likely be 'contentious' but without them it was unlikely the amendments would 'meet the policy objective of ensuring the regime achieves pay equity, whilst better managing claims, and ensuring costs are related to sex-based differences in remuneration.' The legal risks remained redacted, and the bill had no Regulatory Impact Statement. The process was also kept secret to prevent a surge of claims being lodged and potentially determined under the existing Employment Relations Act. The acting Attorney-General, Paul Goldsmith's consideration of the bill concluded that while it imposed limits on the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to justice, and freedom of expression, it was still consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. The paper van Velden took to Cabinet for approval, included in MBIE's document dump, shows she considered any limitations on the rights to be justified. 'I consider that this is justified to meet the policy intent of allowing employers to better manage their operations, reducing potential risks to an employer's financial viability, which may lead to a reduction in employment or the quality or quantity of services provided,' van Velden wrote. Finding the contingencies In December 2023, shortly after assuming the government benches, the finance minister requested more information on how the pay equity forecasts worked and whether there were any upcoming large claims. In February 2024, the Treasury reported back, saying the approach brought in by the previous government had contributed to higher cost outcomes, as it disincentivised agencies and funded sector employers from taking a lower-cost bargaining approach. 'While the current Pay Equity process does require agencies to seek a bargaining contingency prior to the bargaining phase, this occurs late in the process, and many of the potential parameters for settlement are already largely agreed between the parties,' officials said. 'The absence of financial incentives during the pre-bargaining phase may have contributed to agencies adopting approaches which exceed the minimum requirements of the Equal Pay Act, for example, agreeing to higher paid comparators when lower paid ones would be appropriate.' It also meant the Cabinet had 'poor visibility' of the costs, until parties were at or near settlement. Treasury said pay equity costs were managed outside of Budget allowances, and there was merit in exploring an approach that brought some or all of the costs back within Budget allowances. By April 2024, Cabinet had agreed to a reset, bringing pay equity funding into two centralised tagged contingencies: one for the funded sector, the other for the public sector. This still allowed the government to meet its legal obligations as an employer, but was deemed to support the coalition's fiscal strategy. However, by the end of 2024, the government was looking to disestablish the funded sector contingency, identifying it as a significant spending commitment. It expected service providers to manage their own claims, with any cost pressures they created managed like any other cost pressure: through the Budget process. How the money was found Nicola Willis chose to close the funded sector contingency and return the funding to the Budget 2025 allowance and capital allowance. This saved $9.6b over the forecast period. For the public sector contingency, Treasury recommended it be retained, but at a reduced level. 'On balance, we consider retaining the contingency at [redacted] for residual costs to protect future allowances to be preferable given the legal obligations on the Crown as an employer under the new Act and Treasury's judgment that we can quantify the impacts with more than 50 percent confidence,' Treasury wrote. The government adopted this approach, with the tagged public sector contingency reduced by $3.2b over the forecast period. In total, the changes returned around $12.8b to the Budget 2025 operating and capital allowances. Closing or reducing the contingencies without some certainty from Cabinet on policy change, however, was seen to potentially 'strain the credibility' of future Budget allowances. And so, the future approach to pay equity was developed. Van Velden's legislation discontinued 33 claims and increased the threshold for what qualified as work that was 'predominantly performed by female employees.' All review clauses under settled claims became unenforceable.
1News
18 hours ago
- 1News
How bad is the tariff news for NZ, really?
New Zealand has been hit with a higher tariff rate than Australia on exports to the US – but economists say the situation could have been worse. It was revealed today that New Zealand exports would have a 15% tariff applied, up from 10% announced earlier. Australia remains at 10%. Brad Olsen, chief executive at Infometrics, said that was a clear challenge for New Zealand. "There is now a wedge between us and Australia." ADVERTISEMENT There were other parts of the world that previously had a higher tariff rate that were now on the same level as New Zealand, such as Europe. "Wine, for example, under the original tariffs, we might have had a slight advantage. Now we don't." But he said it was not necessarily true that the country would have been better off had it negotiated a deal. He said New Zealand did not have a lot to "give up" in those negotiations, and it could have ended up being costly. "I'm a little bit surprised by comments, including from the opposition's trade spokesperson, that the Government failed to achieve a lower tariff rate. "The comments seem to make the implication that New Zealand could have found a way to come up with a trade agreement that might have given us a lower tariff rate. "That might be true, but we have no idea what we would have had to give up to achieve that… some of what had to be given up by other countries to get a 15% tariffs rate is consequential – Japan and other countries had to give up to half a trillion dollars of further investment into the US." ADVERTISEMENT US President signs an executive order for new tariffs on a wide swath of US trading partners to go into effect in seven days. (Source: 1News) He said the impact on New Zealand's trading partners might not be as bad as had been expected, which should prove positive for the economy. "It will be slightly more challenging to export to the US from a New Zealand point of view, but our trading partner activity might not be hit as bad as was feared in April. That's probably a net benefit for us." Mike Jones, chief economist at BNZ, said the increase was not unexpected given indications of the past few weeks. "It's obviously unhelpful for NZ exports into the US, particularly how we line up with those coming from Australia and the UK, given the lower 10% baseline tariff rate for those countries. "Beef and wine exports could be affected. It's interesting in this context that we've seen the NZD/AUD exchange rate fall a little today in the wake of the announcements." 'Quite myopic' ADVERTISEMENT Cranes and shipping containers are seen at a port in Busan, South Korea, Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) Kelly Eckhold, chief economist at Westpac, said he thought New Zealand was in roughly the same position as in April. "On one hand, the tariff is higher, so there is a bigger direct cost, but it's a bit lower for a lot of our trading partners, so it's better for the economy than would otherwise be the case." He said how the lingering elements of uncertainty played out over the coming weeks would be important. "The legal basis of these tariffs, whether they're going to be able to continue or need to be replaced with a different type of tariff, is an issue. And the sectoral tariffs have not yet really been negotiated. "While I don't think these things affect the sort of goods New Zealand trades with the US, there may be some impact on our trading partners." He said it seemed strange that the US was calculating tariffs based on which countries exported more than they imported. ADVERTISEMENT "The concept that US authorities have had of countries ripping them off by selling more stuff to America than they're been buying is quite myopic. "We're only talking about goods trade here, we buy a lot of services from the US. "In large part, the trade imbalance is a cyclical rather than a structural story. "In the last few years, the economy has been relatively weak compared to the US. We're not sucking in as many imports, and the exchange rate has been lower than would normally be the case, which has encouraged export revenues. "I would have thought trade policy metrics like tariffs would be determined on the basis of structural, not cyclical factors. "All those things could easily be the other way around in a few years' time."
