
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards.
The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry.
The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless.
The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990).
Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: fifty-years-of-the-equal-pay-act-1972.pdf
In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.
The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill.
New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders.
The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers.
This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand.
The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire.
This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required.
Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail.
St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet.
To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.'
Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history.
Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
ACT Launches Largest Local Government Campaign In New Zealand
ACT Local has today unveiled its full slate of candidates for the 2025 local body elections: 46 practical, community-minded New Zealanders standing across 25 councils. With 37 ward and constituency level candidates, it's the largest local government campaign mounted by a political party in New Zealand, including Labour and the Greens who have stood council candidates for many years. ACT Local is standing a further 9 candidates for Auckland Local Board positions. 'These are New Zealanders who've had enough of being ignored by their councils,' says ACT Leader David Seymour. 'They're stepping up to deliver real change and lower rates. 'ACT's candidates come from all walks of life; we have business owners, tradies, healthcare workers, farmers, and many professionals. What unites them is a belief in sensible spending, equal rights, and a back-to-basics approach. They're ready to bring real-world experience and common sense to the council table. 'Many have built successful careers, but more importantly, they're local residents and ratepayers – people who've built homes, raised families, and dealt firsthand with council bureaucracy. They know what it's like to stretch a budget and deal with the challenges people face locally. 'Now they're stepping forward to bring practical solutions and a laser focus on core services like roads, water, and rubbish. 'In central government, ACT is cutting waste, defending equal rights, and taking pressure off households. Our councillors will do the same: vote against wasteful spending, stand up for democratic principles, and focus on essential services without driving up rates. 'Kiwis voted for real change in 2023, but our councils missed the memo. 'While ratepayers face eye-watering rate hikes, councils are blowing money on vanity projects, pushing ideological agendas like co-governance, and wasting time grandstanding about global politics – all while ignoring the basics. 'Every local election, voters get the little booklet with their ballot paper and tick whoever they think will do the best job. But too often, you don't know what you are going to get. Candidates promise one thing and then do another. With ACT Local candidates, you'll know exactly where they stand. 'So if there's an ACT Local candidate in your area and you want real change from your council, I hope you will give them your support.' Candidate profiles can be found here. A full list of our candidates is below: Northland Far North District Council Davina Smolders – Bay of Islands–Whangaroa Ward Whangārei District Council Matthew Yovich – Bream Bay Ward Kaipara District Council Nima Maleiki – Kaiwaka–Mangawhai Ward Roger Billington – Otamatea Ward Auckland Council & Local Boards Albany Ward and Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Hibiscus Coast Subdivision) Samuel Mills North Shore Ward and Devonport-Takapuna Local Board Helena Roza Franklin Ward and Franklin Local Board (Wairoa Subdivision) Dene Green Howick Ward and Howick Local Board (Botany Subdivision) Ali Dahche Manukau Ward and Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board (Ōtara Subdivision) Henrietta Devoe Hibiscus and Bays Local Board (Hibiscus Coast Subdivision) Yang Qu Kaipātiki Local Board Martin Lundqvist Henderson-Massey Local Board Ben Cox Ōrākei Local Board Martin Mahler Amanda Lockyer Robert Meredith Howick Local Board (Pakuranga Subdivision) Pat Arroyo Howick Local Board (Howick Subdivision) William Goldberg Papakura Local Board Prasad Gawande Central & Lower North Island Waikato District Council Peter Mayall – Tamahere–Woodlands Ward Hauraki District Council Michelle Magnus – Paeroa Ward Andrew Pickford – Plains Ward Waipa District Council Stuart Hylton – Cambridge Ward Hamilton City Council Nidhita Gosai – West Ward Preet Dhaliwal – East Ward New Plymouth District Council Damon Fox – Kaitake–Ngāmotu Ward Napier City Council Iain Bradley – Ahuriri Ward Manawatū District Council Jerry Pickford – Feilding Ward Aaron McLeod – Feilding Ward Palmerston North City Council Glen Williams – General Ward Porirua City Council Phill Houlihan – Pāuatahanui Ward Greater Wellington Regional Council Nigel Elder – Lower Hutt Constituency Alice Claire Hurdle – Wellington Constituency Wellington City Council Ray Bowden – Onslow–Western Ward Mark Flynn – Northern Ward Luke Kuggeleijn – Eastern Ward South Island Candidates Tasman District Council David Ross – Motueka Ward Daniel Shirley – Richmond Ward Marlborough District Council Malcolm Taylor – Marlborough Sounds Ward John Hyndman – Blenheim Ward Hurunui District Council Tom Spooner – South Ward Waimakariri District Council Nathan Atkins – Kaiapoi–Woodend Ward Selwyn District Council Chris Till – Rolleston Ward Timaru District Council John Bolt – Timaru Ward Environment Canterbury Regional Council Toni Severin – South Canterbury Constituency Otago Regional Council Robbie Byars – Molyneux Constituency Dunedin City Council Anthony Kenny – Council At-large Ward


NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Govt's conservation changes spark backlash over land protections
A major overhaul of conservation land law has sparked sharp criticism from Forest & Bird, which accuses the Government of gutting longstanding protections in favour of commercial interests. The Government's intended changes to the Conservation Act, unveiled at the National Party conference in Christchurch yesterday, aims to 'unleash growth'

NZ Herald
13 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.