Comment: Launching a podcast on pay equity legislation changes could be, arguably, niche.
Not because it’s an unimportant issue with wide-ranging and far-reaching impact; it’s vital in correcting the historic undervaluation of critical, female-dominated professions (like caregiving and nursing), directly reduces poverty, and drives broader economic growth.
The Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 was an egregious trampling on women and workers across the country; it was also an insidious use of the power of urgency to avoid public scrutiny, and offends the rule of law in regard to retrospectivity.
For those most impacted, for those deeply involved in policy and for those working in the advocacy space, pay equity is a core topic of conversation. For those less involved, it can feel like a complex issue to untangle; throw in chat about comparators and the rule of law, and it might not feel like a broad audience conversation.
So, that’s why we’ve used satire (with the assistance of Tom Sainsbury) and fictional detective work to remind New Zealanders about what happened just over a year ago.
On the morning of May 8, 2025, 33 groups of workers woke up to find their pay equity claims no longer existed. There was zero warning, no consultation, and no chance to respond.
Feedback received on Shortchanged from listeners in the past two days has been that it’s good to remember that meetings were held where ministers were briefed, but policy details were not tested with the key bodies that represent those most affected by the changes. And that there was no input from the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women – an independent ministerial advisory body to the Minister for Women – on a policy that disproportionately affects … women. The whole operation had its own code name, Project 10.
The legal problems with what the Government did are significant, and they go beyond the policy debate about whether the pay equity thresholds were too low or too high. They go to something fundamental: whether Parliament can erase rights that people were already lawfully exercising.
Former Minister of Justice and constitutional lawyer Margaret Wilson called the passing under urgency “an abuse of constitutional legislative process”. Alan McDonald from the Employer and Manufacturers Association said the process was “pretty awful, to be honest”. When you listen to the hours of submissions presented to the People’s Select Committee it becomes clear that this is not an issue divided along partisan lines; people, across the political spectrum, have expressed their concern about the poor lawmaking and the bad process. The use of urgency in Parliament is not inherently wrong – it exists for genuine emergencies. The Christchurch earthquakes. A pandemic. It does not exist so that ministers can restructure our entire pay equity legal and policy landscape and wipe 33 existing claims before the Budget is announced, and before the people holding those claims have any idea what is coming.
As former mayor of Christchurch (and someone with firsthand experience of a genuine emergency and decision-making), Lianne Dalziel said “the use of urgency is acceptable in many situations, particularly in a time of emergency. I understand that laws that would normally go through an extensive process would be truncated in a genuine emergency. But this wasn’t a genuine emergency. The only thing that the Government was attempting to do was to change the law, without any prior warning, in the lead-up to the Budget, so that they could reallocate the money that they had to allocate to pay equity settlements to other things.”
In the wider context, Sir Geoffery Palmer has been vocal about the coalition Government’s use of urgency, particularly in regard to the impact on legislative checks and balances which are further reduced when legislation is made at pace.
“What is the hurry? Legislation is lawmaking. You want to get it right. You have to analyse it, you have to do proper research, you don’t bang it through because a minister has an idea.”
Another problematic element of the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 is its retrospectivity. Essentially, the general principles for good legislation include that a law should not be drafted to apply retrospectively because, if a law does, it can make it impossible for the public to comply with the legislation.
Retrospective legislation is not automatically unconstitutional in New Zealand. Parliament can do it. But as Dame Silvia Cartwright put it in her submission to the People’s Select Committee, (an independent inquiry established by 10 former MPs) it “should be used rarely, most commonly when there is some emergency justifying it”. The rights people relied on were removed or changed to their detriment without giving them a chance to comment. That, she said, “breaches fundamental legislative principles of fairness, legal certainty and the rule of law”.
The committee’s report documents that Workplace Minister Brooke Van Velden was advised by officials that “a retrospective application of legislation to current claims is rare and would need to be justified”.
Officials from MBIE and the Public Service Commission had warned the Government in writing that the transitional arrangements would “retrospectively remove and alter people’s rights”. The advice was noted. The legislation passed anyway, with the section of official advice dealing with human rights entirely redacted before it was released to the public. We still do not know what it said.
It is these gaps in information, the lack of consultation and the concerning processes followed. They are all a huge part of why the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 is such a problematic piece of legislation.
What happened to those 33 groups of workers – 180,000 workers in total – was not just unfair policy and a betrayal of New Zealand women. It set fire to the rule of law. The question now is whether any political party is willing to make a commitment, before the next election, to do better in upholding our democratic processes – and whether Sir Geoffery Palmer’s challenge for better legislation-making can be taken up by all parties.
That would be a start.
Listen to all episodes of Shortchanged here.
